US v. Christopher Jenkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00367-LCB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999892182]. [15-4776]

Appeal: 15-4776

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4776

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER SHANE JENKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta Copeland
Biggs, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00367-LCB-1)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

July 20, 2016

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Graham Tod Green, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4776

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Shane Jenkins appeals his prison sentence after
pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
The district court imposed a sentence of 40 months in prison,
which was above Jenkins’ advisory Guidelines range of 27 to 33
months.

Jenkins’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether
the

district

court

erred

in

varying

upwards

and

imposing

a

sentence 7 months above the top end of the Guidelines range.
Jenkins has filed a pro se supplemental brief also challenging
the upward variance and making two arguments.

We affirm.

We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of
‘whether

[the

sentence

is]

inside,

just

significantly outside the Guidelines range.’”

outside,

or

United States v.

Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).

We “must first ensure that the

district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as failing to . . . adequately explain the chosen sentence—
including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

reasonable,
“tak[ing]

we
into

consider
account

the

If the sentence is procedurally

its

substantive

totality
2

of

the

reasonableness,
circumstances,

Appeal: 15-4776

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id.

If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, we “may

consider

the

extent

of

the

deviation,

but

must

give

due

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”

Id.

The district court “must make an individualized assessment
based

on

the
the

apply[ing]

facts

presented

relevant

when

§ 3553(a)

imposing

factors

a

to

sentence,

the

specific

circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must state in
open

court

sentence.”

the

particular

Lymas,

781

quotation marks omitted).

F.3d

reasons
at

supporting

113

its

(citation

and

chosen
internal

“In imposing a variance sentence, the

district court must consider the extent of the deviation and
ensure

that

the

justification

is

significantly

support the degree of the variance.”
quotation marks omitted).

compelling

to

Id. (citation and internal

“[A] district court’s explanation of

its sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some
individualized

assessment

justifying

the

sentence

imposed

and

rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on
§ 3553.”

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The “court’s stated rationale must be tailored to the particular
case

at

review.”

hand

and

adequate

to

permit

meaningful

appellate

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Appeal: 15-4776

Doc: 25

We

Filed: 07/20/2016

have

reviewed

the

Pg: 4 of 5

record

and

conclude

that

Jenkins’

sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
him above his Guidelines range.

The district court made an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applied
the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of
the

case

and

the

defendant,

and

adequately

particular reasons supporting its sentence.

explained

the

We therefore give

due deference to the court’s reasoned and reasonable decision
that the § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence.

See United

States

Cir.

v.

Diosdado-Star,

630

F.3d

359,

(citation and quotation marks omitted).
Jenkins’

pro

se

supplemental

arguments are without merit.

brief

357

(4th

2011)

We have also reviewed
and

conclude

that

his

To the extent that he is arguing

that he should have received advance notice of the Government’s
request

for

a

variance,

no

such

notice

is

required.

See

Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 713-14 (2008).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
affirm the district court’s judgment.

Accordingly, we

This court requires that

counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

If

counsel

the

client

believes

requests

that
4

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
be

Appeal: 15-4776

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/20/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5