United States v. Adkins

203 F. App'x 472
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 23, 2006
Docket06-4364
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 F. App'x 472 (United States v. Adkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Adkins, 203 F. App'x 472 (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jaramy Allen Adkins appeals his sentence to 130 months in prison and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) (2000), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). On appeal, Adkins contends the district court erred in ruling that he discharged the firearm “during and in relation to” the carjacking and applying the ten-year statutory minimum sentence on count two under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(iii). We affirm.

We will affirm the sentence imposed by the district court as long as it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir.2005). An error of law or fact can render the sentence unreasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006). In considering whether a sentence is unreasonable, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir.2006).

Adkins does not dispute that he discharged the firearm while escaping with the carjacked vehicle by firing shots back at a pursuing vehicle approximately three and one-half minutes after carjacking the vehicle from its owner. However, he contends that because the carjacking was complete before he fired the gun, he did not discharge the weapon “during” the carjacking.

We conclude the district court did not err in ruling the carjacking was still ongoing under the facts and circumstances of this case for purposes of determining whether Adkins discharged the firearm during and in relation to a crime of vio *474 lence. See United States v. Williams, 344 F.3d 365, 373-76 (3d Cir.2003) (defendant who carried a gun in the getaway car after completing a bank robbery carried a firearm “during” and in relation to the crime of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); see also United States v. Martinez-Ber-mudez, 387 F.3d 98, 102 (1st Cir.2004) (carjacking was still in progress during flight with carjacked vehicle prior to reaching temporary safety for purposes of determining whether death occurred in perpetration of carjacking).

Accordingly, we affirm Adkins’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Arthur Simmons
472 F. App'x 216 (Fourth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 F. App'x 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-adkins-ca4-2006.