US v. Jayme Eley, No. 12-4614 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4614 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAYME GLEN ELEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00374-D-1) Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jayme Glen Eley pled guilty without a plea agreement to two counts of possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted months felon. The imprisonment, district an upward month advisory Guidelines range. sentence imposed is court sentenced variance from Eley the 84 to 120 to 105 Eley appeals, arguing that the unreasonable. Finding no abuse of the appellate discretion, we affirm. In court must decision. reviewing a give deference due sentencing to variance, the sentencing court s United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011). The district court has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines range and need only set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for its (internal quotation marks omitted). decision. Id. at 364 While a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one[,] . . . a district court need not justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range with a finding of extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 366 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and determined that the district court properly considered the parties arguments and 2 the sentencing (2006). factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) We further conclude that the district court provided an adequate explanation of its reasons for the upward variance as well as the extent of the variance. The court noted Eley s troubling and escalating pattern of criminal activity, his lack of respect for the law, and the fact that he failed to learn from the past lenient sentences previously imposed by the state court for Eley s prior criminal conduct. The district court also cited various § 3553(a) factors to justify the variance, specifically, the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. Because parties the arguments district and court explained its clearly considered reasons for an the upward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that the upward variance was substantively reasonable. See United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 284 (4th Cir.) (concluding that upward variant sentence was reasonable as it was adequately supported by reference determined to those required the § 3553(a) sentence factors ultimately that the court imposed ), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2012); Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d at 366-67 (holding upward variant sentence that was six years longer than Guidelines range was substantively reasonable because district 3 court expressly relied on several § 3553(a) factors to support variance). Accordingly, we affirm the 120-month sentence imposed by the district court. 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. 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.
