US v. Roger Jones, III, No. 15-7069 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER WAYNE JONES, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00037-JAB-1) Submitted: November 25, 2015 Decided: January 8, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Wayne Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kelley Patricia Kenned Gates, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Nicholas Matkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger Wayne Jones, III, appeals the district court’s order denying his Criminal motion Procedure for presentence report. new trial under and 33 a his motion for Federal Rule of correction of the Finding no error, we affirm. A jury convicted Jones of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the district court sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment. pending, Jones affidavit filed from a Jones appealed. a motion prosecution for a witness, While that appeal was new trial Bryan based Sabot. on He an also filed a motion to correct a perceived error in the presentence report. After we affirmed Jones’ conviction and sentence, United States v. Jones, 611 F. App’x 116 (4th Cir. 2015), the district court denied both motions. The present appeal followed. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones a new trial. See United States v. Moore, 709 F.3d 287, 292 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review). Sabot’s testimony at trial was inconclusive on the critical issue of whether Jones possessed a firearm, and the affidavit does not contain sufficient new evidence to suggest that a new trial would probably result in Jones’ acquittal. claims that the See id. Similarly, Government’s to suppression 2 the of extent such Jones evidence constituted a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), he is not entitled to a new trial because the evidence is not material. See United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 470-71 (4th Cir. 2012). motion to correct Finally, because Jones did not file his the presentence report before he was sentenced, the district court properly denied that motion as untimely. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1), (i)(1)(D). 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.
