US v. Shawn Jone, No. 10-4253 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4253 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHAWN DWAYNE JONES, Defendant Appellant, and NED POLK; INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00197-CMC-1) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Dwayne Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Jones to 120 months imprisonment. On appeal, Jones counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in his opinion, there are whether no the meritorious district issues court for appeal, adequately but complied questioning with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Jones guilty plea and whether the sentence imposed is reasonable. a response. The Government declined to file We affirm. Because Jones did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [Jones] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Muhammad, Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 and that Jones guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. We also conclude that Jones procedurally and substantively reasonable. 2 sentence is both We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. (2007). that the error. 2008). sentence, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The first step in this review requires us to ensure district court committed no significant procedural United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. In determining this court the procedural considers reasonableness whether the of district a court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. the substantive Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. reasonableness of the We then consider sentence, account the totality of the circumstances. taking into United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). A sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded an appellate presumption of reasonableness. (2007). Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 We have reviewed the record and conclude that Jones within-Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We further find no merit to the issue raised in Jones pro se supplemental brief. sentence. writing, We therefore affirm Jones conviction and This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in of the right to petition 3 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 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 contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are 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.
