US v. Jermaine Jenkins


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00487-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999736420].. [15-4095]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4095 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4095 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE LAMONT JENKINS, a/k/a Twin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00487-NCT-1) Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: January 15, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Joanna G. McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4095 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jermaine Lamont Jenkins pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012), and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced Jenkins to a total of 154 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals, raising three issues related to the calculation of his sentence. We affirm. Jenkins contends that the district court clearly erred in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for leadership, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2013), and a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, pursuant to USSG § 3C1.1. A district court’s factual findings at sentencing are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Andrews, __ F.3d __, __, 2015 WL 6575671, *4 at (4th Cir. Oct. 30, 2015) (No. 14-4422) (obstruction-of-justice enhancement); United States v. Steffen, 741 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir. 2013) (leadership enhancement). Our review of the record reveals no clear error by the district court in these determinations. Accordingly, the enhancements were proper. Jenkins also asserts that the district court erred in denying him a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a defendant is ineligible for the acceptance-of2 Appeal: 15-4095 Doc: 45 responsibility justice Filed: 01/15/2016 adjustment enhancement. when USSG Pg: 3 of 3 he receives § 3E1.1 an cmt. obstruction-of- n.4; see United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171, 175 (4th Cir. 2010). fails to establish reduction. (4th extraordinary circumstances Jenkins warranting a See United States v. Hudson, 272 F.3d 260, 263-64 Cir. 2001) (assigning burden to defendant). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction. See United States v. Burns, 781 F.3d 688, 692 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2872 (2015). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?