United States v. Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY JONES, a/k/a Digity, a/k/a Digity
Chemist, a/k/a Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00324-D)
Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 19, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Gerald Beaver, BEAVER, HOLT, STERNLICHT & COURIE, P.A.,
Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank DeArmon
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Jones was convicted of conspiracy to distribute
cocaine and cocaine base and was sentenced to life in prison. He
now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal. Jones has also filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.
Jones first attacks the sufficiency of the evidence. In
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we consider whether
there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
to the Government, to support the verdict. Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We do not review the credibility
of witnesses, and we assume the jury resolved all evidentiary
contradictions in favor of the Government. United States v. Sun,
278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the trial
transcript convinces us that there was sufficient evidence to
support both convictions.
Jones also claims that his sentence violates the Sixth
Amendment. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
reasonable.” United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir.
2005). “[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guideline range . . . is presumptively reasonable.” United
- 2 -
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 2309 (2006) (internal quotations marks omitted).
Here, the life sentence is statutorily authorized. See
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Moreover, the advisory guideline
range was correctly calculated. With regard to the guideline
calculation, it is abundantly clear that Jones was the leader or
organizer of an organization involving five or more people.
Therefore, the four-level enhancement of his offense level for his
role in the offense was proper. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3B1.1(a) (2005).
The district court imposed a sentence that was both
within the statutory range and the properly calculated advisory
guideline range. Additionally, the court considered the factors
set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) in
imposing sentence. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.*
Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to inform his
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 that such a petition
*
In his informal brief, Jones complains about his convictions
on firearm charges, contending that there was no evidence that the
gun in question traveled in interstate commerce. We note that
Jones was neither indicted for nor convicted of a firearm offense.
- 3 -
would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set
forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -