UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) (2012), and brandishing a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jackson’s counsel has filed a
brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether Jackson’s sentence is
substantively reasonable. 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.” Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first review for “significant
procedural error[s],” including “improperly 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). Only if we conclude that the
sentence is procedurally reasonable may we consider its
2
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. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This 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 that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. 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