US v. Mark Jenkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cr-00016-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999671058]. [15-4069]

Appeal: 15-4069

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ALLEN JENKINS, a/k/a Ibrahim Ibn Abu-Nidal,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:14-cr-00016-F-1)

Submitted:

September 16, 2015

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 2, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leza Lee Driscoll, LAW OFFICE OF LEZA LEE DRISCOLL, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker,
United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L.
Fritz,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4069

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark Allen Jenkins appeals the 78-month upward departure
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (2012).

On

appeal,

is

Jenkins

substantively

contends

that

unreasonable

in

the
light

upward
of

departure

the

age

of

the

convictions on which the court relied to justify the departure.
We affirm.
We review the sentence imposed by the district court for
abuse of discretion.
(2007).

Because

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

Jenkins

does

not

claim

on

appeal

that

the

district court committed any procedural error, we review only
for

substantive

circumstances.
Cir. 2014).

reasonableness

under

the

totality

of

the

United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 528 (4th
“When reviewing a departure, we consider whether

the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its
decision
extent

to

of

impose
the

such

divergence

a

sentence
from

the

and

with

respect

sentencing

to

range.”

the
Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for an upward departure
based

on

category

the

inadequacy

“[i]f

defendant’s
underrepresents

reliable

criminal
the

of

a

defendant’s

information
history

seriousness
2

of

indicates

category
the

criminal

history

that

the

significantly

defendant’s

criminal

Appeal: 15-4069

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other
crimes.”
(2014).

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a)(1), p.s.
“A district court may base an upward departure pursuant

to § 4A1.3(a)(1) on a defendant’s prior convictions, even if
those convictions are too old to be counted in the calculation
of the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.”

Howard, 773 F.3d at 529.

We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances,
the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an
upward

departure

upon

finding

that

Jenkins’

criminal

history

category significantly underrepresented the seriousness of his
criminal history and his likelihood of recidivism.
conclude

that

the

court

did

not

abuse

its

We further

discretion

in

determining the extent of the upward departure, given Jenkins’
extensive criminal history and his demonstrated recidivism.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

conclusions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3