US v. Maurice Jeffer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00315-JFM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000000105]. [16-4348]

Appeal: 16-4348

Doc: 42

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4348

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE LAMAR JEFFERS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cr-00315-JFM-1)

Submitted:

December 30, 2016

Decided:

January 9, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4348

Doc: 42

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Maurice

Lamar

Jeffers

pleaded

guilty

to

converting

the

property of another as a U.S. Officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 654 (2012), and to theft of government property greater than
$1000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2012).
court

imposed

two

concurrent

The district

above-Guidelines

sentences

of

imprisonment for one year and one day, upwardly varying from the
Sentencing Guidelines range of zero to six months’ imprisonment.
On

appeal,

Jeffers

challenges

both

the

substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

procedural

and

After reviewing the

sentence, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007).
ensure

that

The first step in this review requires us to
the

procedural error.
calculate

(or

district
Id.

improperly

court

committed

no

significant

Procedural errors include “failing to
calculating)

the

Guidelines

range,

treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a)

factors,

selecting

a

sentence

based

on

clearly

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.”
When

Id.

explaining

the

sentence,

“the

district

court

must

state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen
2

Appeal: 16-4348

Doc: 42

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

sentence [and] set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that

[the

sentencing

judge]

has

considered

the

parties’

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.”
325,

328

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

2009).

The

district

court’s

explanation

“need not be elaborate or lengthy[,]” but the district court
“must

make

presented.”
court

must

an

individualized

assessment

based

Id. at 330 (emphasis omitted).
consider

the

statutory

factors

on

the

facts

While a district
and

explain

its

sentence, it need not explicitly reference 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) or discuss every factor on the record.

United States v.

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
Only if we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we
consider its substantive reasonableness.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

This assessment requires us to “take into account the totality
of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from
the Guidelines range.”
district
whole,
itself.

court’s

justify

Id.

decision

the

extent

We “must give due deference to the
that
of

the

the

§ 3553(a)

variance”

factors,

and

the

on

a

sentence

Id. at 51; United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d

359, 366-67.

Nevertheless, “[t]he farther the [district] court

diverges from the advisory guideline range, the more compelling
the reasons for divergence must be.”

3

United States v. Hampton,

Appeal: 16-4348

441

Doc: 42

F.3d

Filed: 01/09/2017

284,

288

(4th

Cir.

Pg: 4 of 4

2006)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
The record of Jeffers’ sentencing hearing confirms that the
district

court

reasonable

imposed

sentence.

a

The

procedurally
court

cited

and

substantively

§ 3553(a),

discussed

reasons for the sentence that overlap with § 3553(a) factors,
rejected Jeffers’ nonfrivolous arguments with adequate reasons,
and

tailored

the

sentence

to

the

seriousness

of

Jeffers’

individual conduct.
Absent any procedural error, we next review the sentence
for

substantive

reasonableness.

While

the

district

court

imposed a sentence twice the maximum Guidelines sentence of six
months, “deviations from the Guidelines range will always appear
more extreme . . . when the range itself is low.”
U.S. at 38.

Gall, 552

Here, the district court justified the extent of

its deviation based upon the seriousness of Jeffers’ conduct and
the need for punishment to ensure that other law enforcement
officers would not undermine the public’s trust as Jeffers had.
Because

we

conclude

that

the

district

court

imposed

a

reasonable sentence, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
4