UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 district court, discussing
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, imposed a within-
Guidelines term of imprisonment of 168 months and an upward
variant term of supervised release of 10 years. 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).” 18
U.S.C. § 3583(c) (2012). Having reviewed the record, we do not
2
find it obvious or clear that the district court’s imposition of
a 10-year term of supervised release was substantively
unreasonable given Jacobs’ extensive criminal record and his
repeated violations of terms of probation and supervised
release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) (2012) (identifying
“adequate deterrence to criminal conduct” as factor for
determining proper sentence); cf. U.S. Sentencing 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. 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