United States v. Jennings, 4th Cir. (2010)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4034
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
KEYO JENNINGS,
Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00595-PMD-1)
Submitted:
November 18, 2010
Before SHEDD and

Circuit Judge.
AGEE,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
November 29, 2010
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant.
Sean Kittrell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keyo
Jennings
pled
guilty
to
one
count
of
being
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to
120 months in prison.
Counsel has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that

after
review
of
the
record,
he
has
found
no
meritorious
grounds for appeal.
The Anders brief nonetheless indicates that
the
by
issues
raised
the
appeal
include
whether:
(i)
the
district court erred when it found that Jennings possessed the

subject firearm in connection with another felony offense; (ii)
the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when it
accepted Jennings guilty plea; and (iii) Jennings 120-month
sentence
is
reasonable.
Jennings
has
filed
pro
se
supplemental brief raising several issues, including whether the

district court correctly calculated his Guidelines range.
Government has declined to file a responsive brief.
The
Finding no
error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11
for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2002).
A review of Jennings Rule 11 hearing reveals
that the district court complied with Rule 11s requirements.

Jennings
plea
was
knowingly,
voluntarily,
2
and
intelligently
made, with full knowledge of the consequences attendant to his

guilty plea.
We therefore find that no plain error occurred and
affirm Jennings conviction.

We
presentence
category
also
affirm
investigation
criminal
Jennings
report
history
and
sentence.
properly
Jennings
placed
attributed
him
him
with
in
total
offense level of twenty-five, yielding a Guidelines range of 100

to 125 months in prison. 1
Because the statutory maximum sentence
applicable
conviction
to
Jennings
was
ten
years,
however,
Jennings Guidelines range was appropriately calculated at 100

to 120 months in prison.
See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
At sentencing, the district court afforded counsel an

opportunity to argue regarding an appropriate sentence, afforded
Jennings an opportunity to allocute, considered the 18 U.S.C.
3553(a) (2006) factors before imposing Jennings sentence, and
adequately
explained
particular sentence.
its
rationale
for
imposing
Jennings
See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
330 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the district court must
1
We conclude that the district court correctly applied the

four-level enhancement to Jennings offense level, pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) 2K2.1(b)(6) (2008),
based on the Governments evidence that Jennings possessed the
firearm and ammunition in connection with his commission of
another felony offense.
Jennings assertion to the contrary,
the district court appropriately granted Jennings a three-level
reduction in his offence level based on his acceptance of
responsibility, in accordance with USSG 3E1.1 (2008).
place on the record an individualized assessment based on the

particular
facts
individualized
of
the
assessment
case
.
before
.
must
it
and
provide
that
the
rationale
tailored to the particular case at hand and [be] adequate to

permit meaningful appellate review) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
Because this court presumes Jennings
within-Guidelines sentence is correct, and since Jennings has

presented
no
evidence
to
rebut
Jennings 120-month sentence.
this
presumption,
we
affirm
See United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 2
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.
This court
requires that counsel inform Jennings, in writing, of the right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.
If Jennings requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jennings.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2
We have considered the remaining arguments raised by

Jennings in his pro se supplemental brief and find them to be
without merit.
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

United States v. Jennings, 4th Cir. (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Jennings, 4th Cir. (2010)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Jennings, 4th Cir. (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

November 18, 2010

Before SHEDD and

November 29, 2010

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of

Counsel has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that

grounds for appeal.

The Anders brief nonetheless indicates that

district court erred when it found that Jennings possessed the

supplemental brief raising several issues, including whether the

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525

(4th Cir. 2002).

A review of Jennings Rule 11 hearing reveals

that the district court complied with Rule 11s requirements.

made, with full knowledge of the consequences attendant to his

We therefore find that no plain error occurred and

affirm Jennings conviction.

offense level of twenty-five, yielding a Guidelines range of 100

Because the statutory maximum sentence

Jennings Guidelines range was appropriately calculated at 100

See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).

At sentencing, the district court afforded counsel an

See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,

We conclude that the district court correctly applied the

place on the record an individualized assessment based on the

tailored to the particular case at hand and [be] adequate to

Because this court presumes Jennings

within-Guidelines sentence is correct, and since Jennings has

Jennings 120-month sentence.

See United States v. Allen, 491

F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).

requires that counsel inform Jennings, in writing, of the right

If Jennings requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Jennings.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

We have considered the remaining arguments raised by

You might also like