United States v. Jones ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4853
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL JONES, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00155-2)
Submitted: January 8, 2007 Decided: February 7, 2007
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Jones, III, appeals the amended judgment of
conviction. This court remanded Jones’ sentence for the purpose of
having the court determine the sentencing enhancement for
obstruction of justice under the rules announced in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). At resentencing, the court
found the enhancement was supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. The court further understood the advisory nature of the
guidelines. Prior to imposing sentence, the court considered the
statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). On
appeal, Jones, who is proceeding pro se, challenges the
jurisdiction of the court to convict him for bank robbery.
Issues that could have been raised during the first
appeal but were not are generally not reviewable. See Omni Outdoor
Advertising v. Columbia Outdoor Advertising, 974 F.2d 502, 505-06
(4th Cir. 1992) (inappropriate to consider argument on second
appeal following remand when it could have been made in first
appeal); United States v. Fiallo-Jacome, 874 F.2d 1479 (11th Cir.
1989) (same principle applies in criminal cases); Northwestern Ind.
Tel. Co. v. F.C.C., 872 F.2d 465, 470 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (omission of
even constitutional issues from first appeal waives consideration
in later appeal). In any event, Jones’ claim is without any merit.
See Pigford v. United States, 518 F.2d 831, 833 (4th Cir. 1975).
- 2 -
Because Jones does not challenge the district court’s
conduct at resentencing in reviewing the enhancement for
obstruction of justice, we find the claim abandoned. Accordingly,
we affirm the sentence. 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 -