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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?