US v. Damon Jones, No. 15-4309 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4309 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON KEYON JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00178-NCT-1) Submitted: December 18, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon Keyon Jones appeals from the district court’s amended judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 48 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, sentence is substantively unreasonable. Jones argues that this We affirm. This court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release “if it is within the statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d (quoting United 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). States v. Crudup, When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, “follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original A supervised reasonable sentences.” release if the Crudup, revocation district court 461 sentence F.3d is considers at 438. procedurally the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and explains the sentence adequately after considering the policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case. See 18 U.S.C. A revocation district defendant § 3583(e) sentence court should states is a receive (2012); Crudup, substantively proper the basis sentence 2 461 F.3d reasonable for at 439. if the concluding the imposed, up to the statutory maximum. sentence will is we See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. found “then unreasonable.” procedurally decide or whether substantively the sentence Id. at 439 (emphasis omitted). Only if a unreasonable is plainly A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Id. Jones contends that his 48-month revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not consider certain mitigating factors proffered in support of a sentence within the advisory policy statement ranges of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment and imposed the revocation sentence to punish him for his conduct violating supervised release rather than for his breach of trust. Contrary to Jones’ assertion, however, the record makes clear that the district court heard his arguments in mitigation at the revocation hearing but rejected them in light of the nature and circumstances of his violative behavior, his history and characteristics, and the need for the revocation sentence to sanction his breach of trust on release, all factors the court was permitted to consider in imposing a revocation sentence. 3583(e); U.S. introductory Sentencing cmt. 3(b) See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), Guidelines (U.S. Manual Sentencing ch. Comm’n 7, 2015) pt. A, (“[A]t revocation the [district] court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a 3 limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator.”). We therefore conclude that the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable and affirm the district court’s amended judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 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.
