United States v. Jones , 422 F. App'x 290 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4722
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT EDWARD JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:02-cr-00326-HFF-1)
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Vincent Edward Jones pled guilty to being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2000) and possession with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of cocaine base and 500 grams or more of cocaine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). During the pendency
of Jones’ sentencing hearing, he and the Government reached an
agreement as to sentencing. The district court imposed the
agreed upon 210-month sentence at the conclusion of Jones’
sentencing hearing. Jones then filed this timely appeal.
Jones’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the
reasonableness of his sentence. Because we find no meritorious
grounds for appeal, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). This review
requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
2
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Finally,
this court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding
that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
Here, the district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Jones, properly calculating the
Guidelines sentence, considering the § 3553(a) factors, and
sentencing Jones to a negotiated sentence of 210 months — some
150 months below the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range.
Hence, we determine that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively 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 Jones in writing of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Jones requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that 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 Jones.
3
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