UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4614
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAYME GLEN ELEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00374-D-1)
Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jayme Glen Eley pled guilty without a plea agreement
to two counts of possession with intent to distribute a quantity
of marijuana and two counts of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. The district court sentenced Eley to 120
months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the 84 to 105
month advisory Guidelines range. Eley appeals, arguing that the
sentence imposed is unreasonable. Finding no abuse of
discretion, we affirm.
In reviewing a sentencing variance, the appellate
court must give due deference to the sentencing court’s
decision. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011). The district
court “has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the
Guidelines range” and need only “set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments
and has a reasoned basis” for its decision. Id. at 364
(internal quotation marks omitted). While “a major departure
should be supported by a more significant justification than a
minor one[,] . . . a district court need not justify a sentence
outside the Guidelines range with a finding of extraordinary
circumstances.” Id. at 366 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and determined that the
district court properly considered the parties’ arguments and
2
the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(2006). We further conclude that the district court provided an
adequate explanation of its reasons for the upward variance as
well as the extent of the variance. The court noted Eley’s
troubling and escalating pattern of criminal activity, his lack
of respect for the law, and the fact that he failed to learn
from the past lenient sentences previously imposed by the state
court for Eley’s prior criminal conduct. The district court
also cited various § 3553(a) factors to justify the variance,
specifically, the need to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct, and protect the public from further crimes
of the defendant.
Because the district court clearly considered the
parties’ arguments and explained its reasons for an upward
variance based on the § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that the
upward variance was substantively reasonable. See United States
v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 284 (4th Cir.) (concluding that upward
variant sentence was reasonable as it was adequately supported
by reference to those § 3553(a) factors that “the court
determined required the sentence ultimately imposed”), cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2012); Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d at 366-67
(holding upward variant sentence that was six years longer than
Guidelines range was substantively reasonable because district
3
court expressly relied on several § 3553(a) factors to support
variance).
Accordingly, we affirm the 120-month sentence imposed
by the district court. 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
4