United States v. Jamire White , 545 F. App'x 207 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4276
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIRE DONYE WHITE, a/k/a TJ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00375-FDW-3)
Submitted: October 25, 2013 Decided: November 1, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, LAW OFFICE OF CHIEGE O. KALU OKWARA,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins,
United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamire Donye White pled guilty to taking by force,
violence, and intimidation, a bank card, from a person and
presence of another, who was assaulted during commission of the
offense and using same card to withdraw currency and aiding and
abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d)
(2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). He was sentenced to 151 months
of imprisonment. On appeal, he raises two sentencing issues,
whether: (1) the district court properly imposed enhancements
under the Sentencing Guidelines and (2) his criminal history
points were properly calculated. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
We review sentences for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Miscalculation of the
Guidelines range is a significant procedural error. Id. White
alleges that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence
in various ways under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) (2012). We review a district court’s factual findings
for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010).
White disputes the district court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines enhancements finding that the property of
a financial institution was taken, that a dangerous weapon was
2
used to assault the victim, that the victim was physically
restrained, and that White was an organizer, leader, manager, or
supervisor of the offense. We find no clear error in the
district court’s application of these Guidelines enhancements.
In his second issue, White disputes some of his
nineteen criminal history points. He concedes on appeal,
however, that even if this court granted him relief regarding
the disputed points, he would still have a criminal history
category of VI, the highest category. Thus, any error by the
district court was harmless and this claim also fails.
Accordingly, we affirm White’s sentence. 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