US v. Jones, No. 06-4853 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4853 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL JONES, III, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 obstruction court of determine justice the under sentencing the rules States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). enhancement announced in for United 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. ยง 3553(a) (2000). appeal, Jones, who is proceeding pro se, challenges On 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 obstruction of justice, we find the claim abandoned. for Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
