US v. Demaris Jenkins, No. 12-4273 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DEMARIS JEROME JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00038-WO-1) Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: January 3, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Demaris Jerome Jenkins appeals from the district court s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of the statutory maximum twenty-four months in prison. On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the court failed to adequately consider mitigating sentencing circumstances and whether the court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the statutory sentencing factors. Government nor Jenkins has filed a brief. Neither the We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the range and not plainly unreasonable. prescribed statutory United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first consider whether Id. at 438. the sentence is unreasonable. determination, we considerations that sentences. Id. follow [we the use procedural in the] In making this and review substantive of original In this inquiry, we take[] a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 for guidelines Only if we find the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so. Id. at 657. plainly afoul unreasonable if it runs of A sentence is clearly settled United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. law. 2010). Regarding variances, we may consider the extent of the deviation [from the recommended Guidelines range], but must give due deference to the district court s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2006] factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance. (2007). The Gall v. sentencing United judge States, should 552 set U.S. forth 38, 51 enough to satisfy the appellate court that he 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 Carter rationale applies to revocation hearings; however, [a] court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (noting that a district court s reasoning may be clear from context and the court s statements throughout the sentencing hearing may be considered). Jenkins argues first that the sentence imposed is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his mitigating circumstances. 3 We conclude that the record does not support Jenkins assertions. The court clearly heard Jenkins s arguments for leniency, but the court rejected his attempts to minimize his actions by noting the repetitive nature of his violations, as well as the violations occurred soon after his release. fact that the Moreover, the court properly considered the nature and circumstances of Jenkins s underlying conviction, conviction, the and lenient Jenkins s sentence given failure on to that accept See United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, responsibility. 203-04 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that district court may consider leniency of original sentence in determining extent of breach of trust). for Finally, the court gave specific, detailed reasoning the upward Guidelines variance range, Accordingly, we and find from the Jenkins that the twelve-to-eighteen-month does not sentence is argue not otherwise. procedurally unreasonable. Next, we hold that the sentence was substantively reasonable, as it was within the prescribed statutory range and resulted from relevant § 3553(a) U.S.C. the § 3583(e) district factors (2006), court s and the proper policy district weighing may revoke a the Under statements. of 18 term of supervised release and sentence a defendant to serve all or part of the weighing remaining the supervised factors set release forth 4 in term in prison § 3553(a)(1), after (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). the court offense, considered Jenkins s the nature history and and circumstances Here, the and characteristics, of the necessity of deterring further criminal conduct and protecting the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B), (2)(C). Therefore, Jenkins s sentence is substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and have found none. affirm Jenkins s revocation and sentence. As such, we 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 motion this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jenkins. 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 5
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.
