UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4593

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH DEE JACOBS, a/k/a Weezo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cr-00667-JFA-18)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Dee Jacobs appeals his conviction and 188-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). On appeal, 

Jacobs’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the 

Government breached the plea agreement in declining to move for 

a downward departure and whether the district court imposed an 

unreasonable sentence. Jacobs was notified of his right to file 

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government 

has declined to file a response brief. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm.

Jacobs first asserts that the Government breached its 

obligations under the plea agreement by failing to move for a 

downward departure based on substantial assistance. Because 

Jacobs did not raise this argument in the district court, we 

review the issue for plain error. Puckett v. United States, 556 

U.S. 129, 133-34 (2009); see Henderson v. United States, __ U.S. 

__, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013) (describing standard). A

defendant alleging a breach has the burden to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the Government breached the 
3

plea agreement. United States v. Conner, 930 F.2d 1073, 1076 

(4th Cir. 1991).

The plain language of Jacobs’ plea agreement obligated the 

Government to move for a downward departure only if it deemed 

Jacobs’ cooperation as substantial assistance in the 

investigation or prosecution of another person. Because defense 

counsel candidly admitted at sentencing that Jacobs’ cooperation 

had not arisen to the level of substantial assistance, and the 

record provides no basis to conclude otherwise, we find no 

breach of the plea agreement.

Jacobs’ counsel also questions whether the district court 

imposed an unreasonable sentence. We review Jacobs’ sentence 

for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We 

first ensure that the court “committed no significant procedural 

error,” such as improper calculation of the Sentencing 

Guidelines, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, and inadequate explanation of the 

sentence imposed. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). If we find the 

sentence procedurally reasonable, we also review its substantive 

reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 

552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a within-Guidelines is 

substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 
4

295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). 

Jacobs bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing 

that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

Our review of the record indicates that Jacobs’ sentence is 

reasonable. The court properly calculated the applicable 

Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing 

arguments, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence 

it imposed, expressly grounded in various § 3553(a) factors. 

The court specifically considered Jacobs’ request for a downward 

departure or variance but reasonably declined to sentence him 

below the Guidelines range, concluding that such a reduction was 

unwarranted based on the nature and circumstances of the 

offense—including the substantial benefit Jacobs had received by 

pleading to a lesser included offense—and in order to avoid 

unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), 

(6). Further, Jacobs fails to rebut the presumption of 

substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines 

sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Jacobs, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 
5

further review. If Jacobs requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Jacobs.

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