United States v. Roger Jones, III

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7069
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER WAYNE JONES, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00037-JAB-1)
Submitted: November 25, 2015 Decided: January 8, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Wayne Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kelley Patricia
Kenned Gates, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy
Nicholas Matkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Wayne Jones, III, appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 33 and his motion for correction of the
presentence report. Finding no error, we affirm.
A jury convicted Jones of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, and the district court sentenced him to 204
months’ imprisonment. Jones appealed. While that appeal was
pending, Jones filed a motion for a new trial based on an
affidavit from a prosecution witness, Bryan Sabot. He also
filed a motion to correct a perceived error in the presentence
report. After we affirmed Jones’ conviction and sentence,
United States v. Jones, 611 F. App’x 116 (4th Cir. 2015), the
district court denied both motions. The present appeal
followed.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones a new trial.
See United States v. Moore, 709 F.3d 287, 292 (4th Cir. 2013)
(stating standard of review). Sabot’s testimony at trial was
inconclusive on the critical issue of whether Jones possessed a
firearm, and the affidavit does not contain sufficient new
evidence to suggest that a new trial would probably result in
Jones’ acquittal. See id. Similarly, to the extent Jones
claims that the Government’s suppression of such evidence
2
constituted a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), he is not entitled to a new trial because the evidence
is not material. See United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463,
470-71 (4th Cir. 2012). Finally, because Jones did not file his
motion to correct the presentence report before he was
sentenced, the district court properly denied that motion as
untimely. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1), (i)(1)(D).
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
3