United States v. Jones , 82 F. App'x 819 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4431
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL DARRYL JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-02-104)
Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: December 11, 2003
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Sanzone, SANZONE & BAKER, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Darryl Jones pled guilty to one count of possession of
a firearm by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (2000).
The district court sentenced Jones to twelve months and one day in
prison. Jones appealed, contending that the district court should
have directed that his sentence be served at a facility where he
could participate in a work release program. Finding no merit to
his claim, we affirm.
The power to designate an inmate’s place of incarceration
rests solely with the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)
(2000). Jones contends, however, that the district court had the
authority to order that he serve his sentence through work release.
Because Jones’ sentence falls within Zone D of the Sentencing
Table, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 5, pt. A (2002),
incarceration was mandatory and alternative punishment, such as
work release, was not available. USSG §§ 5B1.1 comment. (n.2),
5C1.(f) & comment. n.(8). Therefore, the district court correctly
concluded that it lacked the authority to order that Jones serve
his sentence through work release.
For these reasons, we affirm Jones’ sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3