United States of America v. Mark Allen Jenkins, a/k/a Ibrahim Ibn Abu-Nidal

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4069
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ALLEN JENKINS, a/k/a Ibrahim Ibn Abu-Nidal,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:14-cr-00016-F-1)
Submitted: September 16, 2015 Decided: October 2, 2015
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leza Lee Driscoll, LAW OFFICE OF LEZA LEE DRISCOLL, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker,
United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L.
Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mark Allen Jenkins appeals the 78-month upward departure
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (2012). On
appeal, Jenkins contends that the upward departure is
substantively unreasonable in light of the age of the
convictions on which the court relied to justify the departure.
We affirm.
We review the sentence imposed by the district court for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Because Jenkins does not claim on appeal that the
district court committed any procedural error, we review only
for substantive reasonableness under the totality of the
circumstances. United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 528 (4th
Cir. 2014). “When reviewing a departure, we consider whether
the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its
decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the
extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for an upward departure
based on the inadequacy of a defendant’s criminal history
category “[i]f reliable information indicates that the
defendant’s criminal history category significantly
underrepresents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other
crimes.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a)(1), p.s.
(2014). “A district court may base an upward departure pursuant
to § 4A1.3(a)(1) on a defendant’s prior convictions, even if
those convictions are too old to be counted in the calculation
of the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.” Howard, 773 F.3d at 529.
We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances,
the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an
upward departure upon finding that Jenkins’ criminal history
category significantly underrepresented the seriousness of his
criminal history and his likelihood of recidivism. We further
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
determining the extent of the upward departure, given Jenkins’
extensive criminal history and his demonstrated recidivism.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --