US v. Stacy Jones, No. 15-4112 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STACY ERWIN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00080-1) Submitted: September 18, 2015 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. KEENAN, Decided: Circuit September 29, 2015 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stacy Erwin Jones appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 30 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release after the jury convicted him of aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin. In the district court, Jones objected to the probation officer’s calculation of his relevant conduct, but his attorney withdrew the objection in an agreement with the Government resulting in a lower Guidelines range. raises the accepting issue defense determining his of whether counsel’s relevant the district withdrawal conduct of between defense counsel and the Government. court his pursuant On appeal, he to erred objections the in and agreement We affirm. Jones did not challenge the district court’s acceptance of counsel’s withdrawal in the district court. issue for plain error. 547 (4th Cir. 2015). We thus review this See United States v. Obey, 790 F.3d 545, Jones “must show that an error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights.” Id. (citation omitted). Even if he makes this showing, “we will correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We Id. have reviewed the record and Jones’ brief, and we conclude that he fails to show plain error affecting his substantial rights. 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and 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.
