United States v. Adkins , 203 F. App'x 472 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JARAMY ALLEN ADKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00167-JRG)
Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: October 23, 2006
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Steven I. Loew, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jaramy Allen Adkins appeals his sentence to 130 months in
prison and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty
to carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) (2000), and
using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). On
appeal, Adkins contends the district court erred in ruling that he
discharged the firearm “during and in relation to” the carjacking
and applying the ten-year statutory minimum sentence on count two
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). We affirm.
We will affirm the sentence imposed by the district court
as long as it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005).
An error of law or fact can render the sentence unreasonable.
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). In considering whether a sentence is
unreasonable, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006).
Adkins does not dispute that he discharged the firearm
while escaping with the carjacked vehicle by firing shots back at
a pursuing vehicle approximately three and one-half minutes after
carjacking the vehicle from its owner. However, he contends that
- 2 -
because the carjacking was complete before he fired the gun, he did
not discharge the weapon “during” the carjacking.
We conclude the district court did not err in ruling the
carjacking was still ongoing under the facts and circumstances of
this case for purposes of determining whether Adkins discharged the
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. See United
States v. Williams, 344 F.3d 365, 373-76 (3d Cir. 2003) (defendant
who carried a gun in the getaway car after completing a bank
robbery carried a firearm “during” and in relation to the crime of
bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); see also United States v.
Martinez-Bermudez, 387 F.3d 98, 102 (1st Cir. 2004) (carjacking was
still in progress during flight with carjacked vehicle prior to
reaching temporary safety for purposes of determining whether death
occurred in perpetration of carjacking).
Accordingly, we affirm Adkins’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -