United States v. Demario Jones

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4053 Doc: 35 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4053
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMARIO MARTEZ JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00449-WO-1)
Submitted: February 9, 2023 Decided: April 28, 2023
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Jacob D. Pryor,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4053 Doc: 35 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Demario Martez Jones was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm after being
convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Jones to 96 months of imprisonment, an upward
variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, which recommended a sentence
between 70 and 87 months based on a total offense level of 20 and a criminal history
category of VI. Jones challenges one of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, which
permitted the government to introduce evidence that Jones had been convicted of the same
crime in 2015 along with certain limited facts leading to that conviction. He also argues
that the 96-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
We review the evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion and do not disturb even
an erroneous ruling if it was harmless. United States v. Brizuela, 962 F.3d 784, 791 (4th
Cir. 2020). Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court committed no
reversible error in admitting the challenged evidence.
We review a sentencing decision for substantive reasonableness under a deferential
abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 56 (2007). Having
reviewed the record, we perceive no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2