US v. Andre Jones, No. 13-4574 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4574 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE JERYANN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00117-FDW-1) Submitted: January 27, 2014 Before KING and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 12, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Director, Elizabeth A. Blackwood, Ann Hester, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Jeryann Jones pled guilty in 2006 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to seventy months imprisonment. on April 12, 2012. a petition to violations. violations violation. In May 2013, Jones probation officer filed revoke At the testing The He began his term of supervised release his supervised hearing, Jones positive district for court release, admitted alleging to marijuana, revoked Jones one a three of Grade the C supervised release. With a criminal history category of VI, Jones Policy Statement range was eight to fourteen months imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 7B1.4(a) (2012). The statutory maximum was twenty-four months imprisonment. U.S.C. § term, 3583(e)(3) (2012). followed by The court imposed a ten-month twenty-four Jones noted a timely appeal. See 18 months of supervised release. Jones attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Jones sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Jones has not done so. The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. 2 United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the governing statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 40 (4th Cir. 2006). plainly Before determining whether the sentence is unreasonable unreasonable. we must Id. at 438. decide whether it is In doing so, the court follow[s] generally the procedural and substantive considerations used in reviewing original sentences. Id. A sentence or revocation is procedurally reasonable if the district contained court in Chapter has 7 considered of the the policy Sentencing statements Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. sentence is substantively Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. reasonable if the district A court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory considering maximum. the Crudup, above, the 461 F.3d appeals at court 440. decides sentence is not unreasonable, it should affirm. If, after that Id. at 439. the In this initial inquiry, the court takes a more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than it does applying the reasonableness 3 review to post-conviction Guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if this court finds the sentence unreasonable must the court decide whether it is plainly so. Id. at 657. We find that Jones sentence is not unreasonable. review of the record establishes that the district A court considered the advisory Policy Statement range and took into account specific § 3553(a) factors (e.g., need for deterrence, nature and circumstances characteristics sentence. of the of the defendant) Accordingly, we offense, in conclude and history determining that Jones the and proper ten-month revocation sentence was not unreasonable, nor was it plainly so. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation of Jones supervised release and his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the right to petition 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 because the facts 4 and legal are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
