United States v. Jermaine Jenkins

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE LAMONT JENKINS, a/k/a Twin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00487-NCT-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: January 15, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Joanna G. McFadden,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lamont Jenkins pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012), and aggravated identity
theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2012). The district court
sentenced Jenkins to a total of 154 months’ imprisonment. He
now appeals, raising three issues related to the calculation of
his sentence. We affirm.
Jenkins contends that the district court clearly erred in
applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for leadership,
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (U.S.
Sentencing Comm’n 2013), and a two-level sentencing enhancement
for obstruction of justice, pursuant to USSG § 3C1.1. A
district court’s factual findings at sentencing are reviewed for
clear error. United States v. Andrews, __ F.3d __, __, 2015 WL
6575671, at *4 (4th Cir. Oct. 30, 2015) (No. 14-4422)
(obstruction-of-justice enhancement); United States v. Steffen,
741 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir. 2013) (leadership enhancement). Our
review of the record reveals no clear error by the district
court in these determinations. Accordingly, the enhancements
were proper.
Jenkins also asserts that the district court erred in
denying him a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility, pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, a defendant is ineligible for the acceptance-of-
2
responsibility adjustment when he receives an obstruction-of-
justice enhancement. USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4; see United
States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171, 175 (4th Cir. 2010). Jenkins
fails to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting a
reduction. See United States v. Hudson, 272 F.3d 260, 263-64
(4th Cir. 2001) (assigning burden to defendant). Thus, we
conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying
the reduction. See United States v. Burns, 781 F.3d 688, 692
(4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 135 S.
Ct. 2872 (2015).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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