United States v. Jones , 214 F. App'x 329 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4571
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SCOTT WILLIAM JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00107-IMK-2)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 23, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Zimarowski, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Rita R. Valdrini, Acting United States Attorney, Shawn Angus
Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott William Jones pled guilty to aiding and abetting
the distribution of crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a playground,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 860 (2000), and
was sentenced to eighty-four months in prison. Jones now appeals
his sentence. We affirm.
Jones contends that the district court did not adequately
take into consideration his lack of guidance as a youth and his
history of drug and alcohol addiction when it imposed sentence.
Jones believes that, had these factors been considered properly,
the court would have imposed a lower sentence.
At sentencing, the district court considered Jones’
argument but rejected it. The court recognized Jones’ need for
substance abuse treatment and expressed concern that Jones take his
participation in a long-term drug treatment program seriously. The
court concluded that Jones’ drug dependency and criminal history
were similar to those of offenders who had frequently appeared
before the court and that a departure below the advisory guideline
range was not warranted. The court decided that a sentence within
the properly calculated advisory guideline range of 84-105 months
was appropriate and sentenced Jones to eighty-four months in
prison. In arriving at this sentence, the court took into
consideration the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2006).
- 2 -
We review a sentence imposed after United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to determine whether the sentence is
“within the statutorily prescribed range and reasonable.” United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).1 “[A]
sentence within the proper advisory guideline range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).2 “[A] defendant can only
rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), petition for cert.
filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S. July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439).
Here, Jones failed to rebut the presumption. At
sentencing, the district court considered and rejected his
contention that he should be sentenced below the advisory guideline
range based on his lack of guidance as a youth and his substance
abuse problems. Further, the court took the § 3553(a) factors into
account. We conclude that Jones’ sentence was reasonable
“[b]ecause the district court properly calculated the advisory
1
Jones does not contend that his sentence was outside the
statutorily prescribed range. We note that the sentence falls well
below the statutory maximum of forty years to which he was subject.
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 860.
2
Similarly, Jones does not attack the calculation of the
advisory guideline range. Nor would such an attack be successful,
as our review of the record establishes that the range was
correctly calculated.
- 3 -
Guidelines range and adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors.”
See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d at 346.
We accordingly affirm. 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
- 4 -