United States v. Jones , 304 F. App'x 204 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4672
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT LEONARD JONES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:06-cr-00977-DCN-1)
Submitted: November 25, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Gordon Baker, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brent Alan Gray,
Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent L. Jones, Jr., appeals the district court’s
judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and a
quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C) (2006), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Counsel for Jones filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which she asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but asks this court to review whether Jones’ sentence was
reasonable. * Jones was notified of the opportunity to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but has failed to do so. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005), a district court must engage in a multi-step process at
sentencing. First, it must calculate the appropriate advisory
Guidelines range. It must then consider the resulting range in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
*
We previously remanded this case to allow the district
court an opportunity to reconsider Jones’ sentence in light of
Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), and the
recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine
offenses. See United States v. Jones, 277 F. App’x 307 (4th
Cir. May 13, 2008) (No. 07-4680) (unpublished).
2
(2006) and determine an appropriate sentence. Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). We review the district
court’s imposition of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Id.
at 597; see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007). This court “must first ensure that the district
court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing
to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
If there are no procedural errors, we then consider
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.“Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account
the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guidelines range.” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, this
court may presume a sentence within the Guidelines range to be
reasonable. Id. Mere disagreement with the district court’s
exercise of sentencing discretion does not permit us to
substitute our judgment for that of the lower court. Id. at
473-74. “Even if we would have reached a different sentencing
result on our own, this fact alone is ‘insufficient to justify
3
reversal of the district court.’” Id. at 474 (quoting Gall, 128
S. Ct. at 597).
In her Anders brief, counsel concedes that the 180-
month sentence was reasonable in light of the fact that Jones
received statutory mandatory minimum sentences on both counts.
In our previous opinion in this case, we noted that Jones was
subject to statutory mandatory minimum sentences totaling 180
months’ imprisonment, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). See Jones, 277 F. App’x at 309
n.2. Therefore, because the district court imposed the
mandatory minimum sentences on both counts, we find that Jones’
sentence was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 her client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
4
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5