US v. Lakeevian Jones, No. 08-5016 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAKEEVIAN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00193-FL-1) Submitted: July 8, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lakeevian Jones pled guilty to several drug and firearm offenses and was sentenced to time served, with a fouryear period of supervised release. Jones tested positive for While on supervised release, marijuana on multiple occasions, failed to attend drug counseling, and dropped out of a courtordered Jones halfway-house supervised sentence. program. release The and district imposed a court revoked twenty-eight-month Jones appeals, claiming the district court imposed an unreasonably long sentence. Having reviewed the record, we affirm. This court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable See United statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, We follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences. Id. at 438-39. If we conclude that a sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm the sentence. procedurally Id. or at 439. Only substantively if a unreasonable sentence will is found this court decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. 2 Id. A supervised release revocation sentence is not procedurally unreasonable if the district court considered the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. case. Such a sentence court district is stated defendant should statutory maximum. not substantively a receive proper the unreasonable basis sentence the concluding for if the imposed, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. up to the A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Id. at 439. In this case, the district court reviewed the applicable statutory maximum of sixty months and the Guidelines Chapter district Seven policy range noted Jones court of three multiple to nine months. violations, The which came after an earlier sanction for failing to comply with the terms of his release. original sentence Finally, the The district was the district court product court of noted also noted a downward Jones need that Jones departure. for drug treatment, which the court believed could best be achieved in prison. Having reviewed the record, we find that the district court s sentence was not plainly unreasonable. 3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment revoking Jones supervised release and imposing a twenty-eightmonth prison term. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
