US v. Kenneth Jacobs, No. 15-4401 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4401 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH CHRISTOPHER JACOBS, a/k/a TC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cr-00177-F-1) Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 5, 2016 Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kenneth Christopher Jacobs pled guilty to possession with the intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). the 18 U.S.C. Guidelines § 3553(a) term of The district court, discussing (2012) imprisonment factors, of 168 imposed months a and variant term of supervised release of 10 years. within- an upward On appeal, Jacobs contends that his 10-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. Because Jacobs did not object to the imposed term of supervised release in the district court, we review only for plain error. Webb, 738 F.3d at 640-41. Under the plain error standard, Jacobs must show (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. “An error is plain when it is obvious or clear under current law.” United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 201 (4th Cir. 2012). A district court, “in determining . . . the length of the term and the conditions of supervised release, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).” U.S.C. § 3583(c) (2012). 18 Having reviewed the record, we do not 2 find it obvious or clear that the district court’s imposition of a 10-year term unreasonable repeated of given Jacobs’ violations of release. See “adequate deterrence determining 18 supervised proper extensive terms U.S.C. to release of criminal probation § 3553(a)(2)(B) criminal sentence); cf. was record and (2012) conduct” U.S. substantively and his supervised (identifying as Sentencing factor for Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3 cmt. background (2014) (identifying greater risk of recidivism where defendant’s criminal record contains pattern of offenses and repeated lenient sentences). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
