US v. Jerome Jackson, No. 14-4321 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEROME JERRELL JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00324-JAB-1) Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Timothy Nicholas Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Jerrell Jackson appeals the 124-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) relation (2012), to a and crime § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) brandishing a violence, in of (2012). In firearm during violation accordance of with 18 and in U.S.C. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jackson s counsel has filed a brief certifying appeal but that there questioning substantively reasonable. are no whether meritorious Jackson s grounds for sentence is Although notified of his right to do so, Jackson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. We review Jackson s sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse-of-discretion standard. U.S. 38, procedural 51 (2007). We error[s], must including Gall v. United States, 552 first review improperly for significant calculating[] the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). sentence is procedurally Only if we conclude that the reasonable 2 may we consider its substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, the record reveals no procedural or substantive error in Jackson s sentencing. The district court properly calculated Jackson s Guidelines range and adequately explained the reasons for imposing a within-Guidelines sentence, which we presume to be substantively reasonable. See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Sept. 18, 2014) (No. 14-336). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Jackson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jackson requests counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. such this that a a petition petition court for be would leave to be filed, but frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jackson. 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 3

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.