US v. Terrell Jone, No. 11-4813 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4813 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRELL LEE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00284-BR-1) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22,2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrell conditional Lee guilty Jones plea to was convicted possession of following a firearm his by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district imprisonment. court sentenced Jones to forty-six months Jones reserved the right to appeal the district court s determination that his prior North Carolina conviction for attempted larceny from the person qualified as a felony for the purpose of adjudging him guilty under § 922(g)(1). timely appealed. Jones Prior to submitting an opening brief, Jones moved to vacate his conviction and to remand the case to the district court, arguing that his North Carolina conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and, thus, that the conviction could not serve as the necessary predicate for the § 922(g)(1) charge. oppose Jones motion. The Government does not In light of our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), we reverse and remand. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm. Jones prior North Carolina conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A- 1340.17(c)-(d) (2009) (setting out minimum and maximum sentences 2 applicable under North Carolina s structured sentencing scheme). When Jones raised this argument in the district court, it was foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, however, we overruled Harp with our en banc decision in Simmons, in which we sustained a similar argument in favor of the defendant. In view of our holding in Simmons, we reverse Jones conviction, deny as moot his motion to vacate, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. * mandate forthwith. facts and materials legal before The Clerk is directed to issue the We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. REVERSED AND REMANDED * We of course do not fault the Government or the district court for their reliance upon, and application of, unambiguous circuit authority at the time of Jones indictment and conviction. 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.
