US v. James Jones, No. 08-4720 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4720 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ALBERT JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cr-01264-HMH-1) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and January 22, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario A. Pacella, STROM Carolina, for Appellant. United States Attorney, Appellee. LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Columbia, South Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant Greenville, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James firearm by a Albert Jones convicted pled felon, §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). minimum of 180 months supervised release. * guilty in to possession violation of 18 of a U.S.C. He was sentenced to the mandatory imprisonment and a five-year term of Jones counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether Jones entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Jones specifically challenges the district court s failure to vacate the plea when Jones stated at sentencing that he did not understand his mandatory Government declined to file a brief. supplemental brief. minimum sentence. The Jones has filed a pro se Finding no error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. United States v. Martinez, 277 Crim. P. 11 for plain error. F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). A review of the transcript of Jones guilty plea hearing reveals that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. * Jones plea was The district court granted Jones 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion raising a claim under United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1993), and reinstated judgment for purposes of allowing Jones to file an appeal. 2 knowingly, knowledge voluntarily, of the and intelligently consequences attendant made, to full guilty his with plea. Specifically, we find the district court informed Jones of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence acknowledged that he understood. error. he faced and Jones We therefore find no plain We further find no merit to Jones claim in his pro se supplemental brief. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Jones conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of his 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 representation. in and materials legal before court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jones. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the 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.
