US v. Avery Jeter, No. 10-4250 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. AVERY DEMOND JETER, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00695-GRA-1) Submitted: December 20, 2010 Decided: January 13, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Maxwell Cauthen, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Avery Demond Jeter pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (count one), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (count three). The district court initially imposed a sentence of 120 months on count one and 262 months on count three, to run concurrently to count one. By joint motion of the parties, we remanded for resentencing to correct the sentence because a sentence pursuant to § 924(c) is required by statute to run consecutive to any other sentence. imposed a At total resentencing, sentence of 262 the district months court again imprisonment, but imposed 120 months on count one and a consecutive 142 months on count three. On appeal, Jeter challenges his 262-month sentence, arguing the district court did not adequately explain the reason for its chosen sentence. This court reviews a We affirm. sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard of review. States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). requires us to ensure that significant procedural error. the Gall v. United The first step in this review district court committed no United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include failing to calculate calculating) (or improperly the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 2 [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, explain the chosen sentence. or failing to adequately Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. [I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district court, [this court] review[s] for abuse of discretion and will reverse if such an abuse of discretion is found unless the court can conclude that the error was harmless. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. For instance, the district court must state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence [and] set forth enough to satisfy the appellate arguments and court has a that [it] reasoned has basis legal decisionmaking authority. considered for the exercising parties [its] own United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). If an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation by drawing arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately sufficiently preserves its claim. imposed, the party Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578; see also United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A] defendant need only ask for a sentence outside the range calculated by the court prior to sentencing in order to preserve his claim for appellate review. ). 3 Jeter asserts that the district court committed procedural error by failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed. Jeter s arguments in the district court for a sentence below the recommended Guidelines range preserved his claim of procedural sentencing error on appeal. Id. These arguments sufficiently alert[ed] the district court of its responsibility to render an arguments. individualized explanation Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578. addressing those Therefore, we review any procedural sentencing error for abuse of discretion and reverse Id. at 579. unless the error was harmless. This standard requires that the Government bear the burden of establishing that the error did not affect Jeter s substantial rights. United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2006). Specifically, the demonstrates that Government may the did error avoid not reversal have a only if substantial it and injurious effect or influence on the result and we can say with fair assurance that the district court s explicit consideration of the defendant s sentence imposed. (4th Cir. 2010) arguments would not have affected the United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and agree with the Government that any procedural sentencing error in this case was harmless, as we have no doubt that the district court assessed 4 Jeter s arguments in applying the § 3553(a) factors. 839. See id. at At the first two sentencing hearings, the district court afforded Jeter an opportunity to allocute and defense counsel an opportunity to argue for a sentence below the Guidelines range; namely, overrepresentation of criminal history, Jeter s troubled childhood, and new parental responsibilities. The court addressed in detail Jeter s extensive criminal history, ensured that all of his objections had been addressed, and stated that it had considered sentence. the § 3553(a) factors before imposing At resentencing, the court explicitly stated that it had considered Jeter s request for a downward variance based on his work in prison. Additionally, in imposing the same total sentence as previously imposed, the court explicitly referenced its consideration of several of the § 3553(a) factors. We are satisfied that the district court considered the parties arguments and had a reasoned basis for the sentence imposed, Boulware, 604 F.3d at 837, and that this sentence would not be impacted by a more thorough explanation. See also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007) ( Where . . . the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more Jeter s sentence. facts and legal extensively. ). Accordingly, we affirm We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 5 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 6

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.