UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY ALEXANDER DOE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00072-BO-1)
Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 11, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Mark Herring, WHITE & ALLEN, P.A., Kinston, North Carolina,
for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Alexander Doe pled guilty to armed bank robbery
(Count 1) and use and carry of a firearm during a crime of
violence (Count 2). He was sentenced to 180 months of
imprisonment for Count 1 and a consecutive term of 84 months for
Count 2. On appeal, Doe only contests the extent of the
district court’s upward departure for his sentence on Count 1.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Doe’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, as
calculated in his presentence report, was 57 to 71 months. At
sentencing, the district court imposed an upward variance
sentence of 180 months, based on its perception of the violence
inherent in Doe’s instant bank robbery (where he held a pistol
to a bank employee’s head), the two bank robberies with which he
was charged in Connecticut (where he also held a gun to an
employee’s head in one instance), and his involvement in the
violent assault and branding of a fellow inmate while awaiting
his sentencing. According to information discussed at the
sentencing hearing, Doe beat the victim in the face while two
other inmates restrained him, acted as a lookout while the other
inmates used a heated toothpaste cap to brand circles into the
victim’s forehead, and then spread baby powder to hide the smell
of the burning flesh. Because the branding alerts other
2
“Bloods” gang members to attack or even kill the victim, the
branding targets the victim for further violence.
Under these circumstances, we do not find that the
district court’s sentence was unreasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (stating standard); United
States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (applying
reasonableness standard in upward variance sentencing), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). Accordingly, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument as the arguments are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3