US v. Jessie Short, No. 10-4844 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4844 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESSIE SHORT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00681-PMD-1) Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher L. Murphy, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Dean Hodge Secor I, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jessie following his Short appeals guilty plea the to 31-month one count sentence of imposed manufacturing counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2006). Counsel for Short California, 386 meritorious has issues district court filed pro a U.S. 738 for imposed se filed a brief (1967), appeal, an pursuant stating but that brief, Anders there questioning unreasonable supplemental to are v. no whether the Short has sentence. contending that police searched his residence without a search warrant, and that the district departure. court should have granted him a more generous We affirm. Counsel challenges specify any deficiencies. Short s sentence, but does not We review a sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 reviewing F.3d 572, 575-76 the sentence for (4th Cir. 2010). significant We begin procedural by error, including such errors as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing factors, to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based § 3553(a) on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from the 2 Guidelines range. procedural Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. errors, we then consider If there are no the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized presented. assessment based on the facts United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must state in open court the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010)). The court s explanation need not be exhaustive; it must be sufficient to satisfy the appellate court that the district court has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis authority. for exercising its own legal decisionmaking United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (alterations omitted). We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court granted the Government s motion to depart based on Short s substantial assistance, and thus Short s sentence was 3 below the properly-calculated Guidelines range. Based on our review of the record, we find that the sentence was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. Finally, we reject the claims raised in Short s pro se supplemental brief as meritless. In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Short, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Short 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 Short. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
