US v. Kimberly Jones, No. 13-4313 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIMBERLY ANN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00310-TDS-1) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kimberly Ann Jones pled guilty to two counts of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. imprisonment. Anders v. The district court sentenced her to 32 months Jones s counsel filed a brief in accordance with California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the propriety of reasonableness of the sentence. the guilty plea and the Although advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Jones has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion in the district court to withdraw a guilty plea, this court s review of the plea colloquy is for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). After reviewing the plea agreement and the transcript of the plea hearing, we conclude that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and that Jones s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We have reviewed Jones s sentence and conclude that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Jones, appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, 2 properly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2012) factors in light of Jones s individual characteristics and history. district court did chosen sentence. not abuse its We conclude that the discretion in imposing the See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. writing, This of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Jones, Court of in the If Jones requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jones. We dispense with oral legal contentions are before this and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials court argument would not 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.
