United States v. Jones , 260 F. App'x 574 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANKLIN SHURON JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (2:05-cr-00029-FL)
Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 4, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Franklin Shuron Jones appeals the sentence of 188 months
imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to three drug offenses. We
affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court must calculate the appropriate guideline range,
consider that range in conjunction with the factors set forth at 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and impose sentence.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). We
review a post-Booker sentence to determine whether it is “within
the statutorily prescribed range” and reasonable. Id. at 547.
“[A] sentence within the proper advisory guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006). When conducting a reasonableness inquiry, we
review “legal questions, including the interpretation of the
guidelines, de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear
error.” United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
Jones first contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because he was erroneously found to be a career offender. Our
review of the record satisfies us that he met the criteria for
career offender status. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 4B1.1(a) (2005). Jones was over eighteen when he committed the
instant controlled substance offenses, and he had at least two
- 2 -
prior felony convictions for a crime of violence or a controlled
substance offense. The fact that the majority of Jones’ prior
offenses were for misdemeanors is irrelevant.
Jones also argues that the district court did not
adequately take his upbringing into consideration. To the
contrary, the district court listened carefully to defense
counsel’s description of the circumstances in which Jones was
raised, and described the situation as “tragic.” In imposing
sentence, the court considered a number of factors, including
Jones’ background, his extensive criminal history, other § 3553(a)
factors, and the presentence report, which the court adopted.
We conclude that the arguments raised on appeal are
without merit and that Jones’ sentence, which falls within the
properly calculated advisory guideline range, is reasonable. 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
- 3 -