US v. Jimmy Davis, No. 13-4423 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4423 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JIMMY DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00740-RBH-1) Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: February 19, 2014 Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William T. Clarke, SARRAT & CLARKE, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Davis pled guilty to one count of simple assault of a Federal Correctional Officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) (2012). Davis was sentenced to the maximum statutory sentence year of one imprisonment and one year supervised released and ordered to pay $1747.56 in restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1) (2012). The district court affirmed the magistrate judge s judgment of conviction. has filed a brief under Anders v. On appeal, counsel California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious arguments for appeal. Davis was notified of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. file a brief. The Government did not We affirm. Our review of the transcript shows that the magistrate judge complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that Davis guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. We review a criminal sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly reasonableness, standard. under outside a the Guidelines deferential range, for abuse-of-discretion United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant 2 procedural error. (4th Cir. calculate United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 2008). (or Procedural improperly errors calculating) include the failing Guidelines to range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If, and only if, we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We sentencing conclude and that that the there one was year no procedural sentence was error at substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Davis conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Davis. We dispense with oral argument because the 3 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
