US v. Bruce Jones, No. 09-4444 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4444 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00314-MBS-1) Submitted: June 30, 2010 Decided: July 20, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM. L.L.C., North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Jones pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 946 (2006), and was sentenced to a term of 235 months imprisonment. Jones contends on appeal that the district court erred in finding that he did not qualify for a two-level safety valve reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(11) (2006), because it failed to make an explicit finding that he had not met the fifth criteria set out in USSG § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). We affirm. A defendant may have his base offense level reduced by two levels under § 2D1.1(b)(11) if he meets all five criteria set out in § 5C1.2(a). The fifth requirement is that, by the time he he is sentenced, has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence [he] has concerning the offense or offenses[.] A defendant seeking the benefit of an offense level reduction based on his compliance with § 5C1.2 and § 2D1.1(b)(11) has the burden of proving that he has satisfied the criteria set out in § 5C1.2. F.3d 429, 432 (4th Cir. United States v. Wilson, 114 1997). The district court s determination that a defendant has fulfilled the requirements of § 5C1.2(a)(5) is a factual question that is reviewed for clear error. Id.; United States v. Guerra-Cabrera, 477 F.3d 1021, 1024-25 (8th Cir. 2007). 2 Jones promised in his plea agreement that he would provide to the government full, complete and truthful information about all criminal activities about which he has knowledge. When he was interviewed, Jones did provide information, but he denied having any drug transactions with Angus Jimmerson. At the sentencing hearing, Jimmerson testified about his dealings with Jones over a period of seventeen years. Jones proffered that no such transactions took place. The district court accepted Jimmerson s account and, based on his testimony, attributed forty kilograms of cocaine to Jones. The court found that Jones had not met the requirements for a safety valve reduction, but did not state that he had failed to provide complete and truthful information to the government. We conclude that the court s acceptance of Jimmerson s testimony as credible, and its consequent attribution of forty kilograms of cocaine to Jones despite Jones proffer that he never dealt with Jimmerson, was an implicit finding that Jones had not truthfully provided to the information he had about the offense. government all the Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Jones had not met the criteria for the safety valve reduction. Accordingly, district facts court. and legal We we affirm dispense contentions the with are 3 sentence oral imposed argument adequately by the because the presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.
