US v. Maurice Jeffer
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00315-JFM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-4348]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
MAURICE LAMAR JEFFERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
December 30, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
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).
imprisonment for one year and one day, upwardly varying from the
Sentencing Guidelines range of zero to six months’ imprisonment.
substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
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).
The first step in this review requires us to
Procedural errors include “failing to
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the
state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen
Pg: 3 of 4
sentence [and] set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
“need not be elaborate or lengthy[,]” but the district court
Id. at 330 (emphasis omitted).
While a district
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.”
We “must give due deference to the
Id. at 51; United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d
Nevertheless, “[t]he farther the [district] court
diverges from the advisory guideline range, the more compelling
the reasons for divergence must be.”
United States v. Hampton,
Pg: 4 of 4
The record of Jeffers’ sentencing hearing confirms that the
reasons for the sentence that overlap with § 3553(a) factors,
rejected Jeffers’ nonfrivolous arguments with adequate reasons,
Absent any procedural error, we next review the sentence
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.
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.
reasonable sentence, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?