US v. Joe Jefferson, No. 08-4940 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4940 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOE LEWIS JEFFERSON, a/k/a Stink, a/k/a Louis Jefferson, a/k/a Joe Little, a/k/a Jo Jo, a/k/a Joseph Wayne Jefferson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00023-D-1; 5:07-cr-00197-D) Submitted: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Decided: Circuit December 10, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following his guilty plea to identity fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) (2006), and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), sentenced to conviction 156 and a 924 (2006), months imprisonment concurrent 120 firearm and ammunition count. arguing that the Joe district Lewis on months Jefferson the was identity imprisonment fraud on the Jefferson appeals his sentence, court erred when departure sentence that was too extensive. it imposed a Finding no error, we affirm. Although factual Jefferson correctness sentencing and unjustified does in does of the not claim departing not dispute district that under the court s the the legal or findings at district relevant court was guidelines provisions, Jefferson does assert that his sentence is only 24 months less than the maximum and that it is excessive in light of his guilty plea, acceptance of responsibility, and efforts to cooperate with authorities. analysis of the reasons The district court provided ample it believed Jefferson s departure sentence was warranted, not only during Jefferson s sentencing hearing, but also in a detailed sentencing memorandum. the extent deterrent of effect Jefferson s of his criminal prior 2 more history, lenient the Given negligible sentences, the increasingly serious and extensive nature of Jefferson s offenses, and the district court s meaningful articulation of the reasons for its departure and the extent of the departure, we find that the extent of Jefferson s departure sentence was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007); United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
