US v. Corey Jenkin
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00273-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. . [17-4262]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
COREY RYDELL JENKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-00273-TLW-1)
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 19, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Corey Rydell Jenkins appeals the 94-month sentence imposed on resentencing for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2012). On appeal, Jenkins’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Jenkins can raise no meritorious grounds
for appeal but questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Jenkins was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so, and the Government has
declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first determine
whether the district court committed significant procedural error, such as incorrect
calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range, inadequate consideration of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, or insufficient explanation of the sentence imposed. United
States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). In evaluating the district court’s
Guidelines calculations, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and
its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. White, 771 F.3d 225, 235 (4th Cir. 2014).
If we find no significant procedural error, we examine the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to
satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Jenkins bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by
Pg: 3 of 3
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors.” Id.
Our review of the record reveals that Jenkins’ sentence is reasonable. The district
court properly calculated Jenkins’ Guidelines range and sentenced him within that range
and the applicable statutory maximum. The court considered the parties’ arguments in
sentencing Jenkins and articulated a reasoned basis for the sentence it imposed, grounded
in the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Jenkins fails to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness afforded to his within-Guidelines sentence. See Louthian, 756 F.3d at
306. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Jenkins’ sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Jenkins, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Jenkins requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be 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 Jenkins. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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?