US v. Jermaine Jenkins
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?