James Bernard Jones, Jr. v. USA, No. 14-11008 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 27, 2015.
Download PDF
Case: 14-11008 Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 14-11008 Non-Argument Calendar ______________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 4:13-cv-00142-WTM-GRS, 4:09-cr-00416-WTM-GRS-1 JAMES BERNARD JONES, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent – Appellee. _____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Georgia _____________________ (April 5, 2016) ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-11008 Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Page: 2 of 2 This case is here following a remand from the Supreme Court for consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Following review of the record and the parties’ supplemental briefs, we affirm the denial of Mr. Jones’ motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Briefly stated, Mr. Jones cannot show prejudice from his counsel’s failure to object to the BOLEO offense being counted as a qualifying conviction under the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1(a) & 4B1.2. As we indicated in our prior opinion, the BOLEO offense constituted a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of the career offender provisions. Because we have recently held that the vagueness principle announced in Johnson does not apply to the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, see United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015), any constitutional objection by Mr. Jones’ counsel to the use of the residual clause of the career offender guideline would have failed.* AFFIRMED. _________________ *We deny Mr. Jones’ motion to expand the certificate of appealability to include a freestanding guideline error claim. 2
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.
