United States v. Jerry L. Jones, No. 05-3591 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Enhancement for obstruction of justice was proper in light of defendant's undisputed presentencing conduct, which included drug use and failure to appear.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-3591 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jerry L. Jones, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 3, 2006 Filed: October 4, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jerry L. Jones appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Counsel argues that Jones s 37-month sentence is unreasonable because the court improperly applied an obstruction-of-justice enhancement. 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We conclude that the enhancement was proper in light of Jones s undisputed presentencing conduct, which included using drugs and failing to appear for a court hearing to show cause why his bond should not be revoked. See United States v. Thomas, 72 F.3d 92, 93 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (whether obstruction-of-justice enhancement applies to specific conduct is reviewed de novo; affirming enhancement where, after pleading guilty and being released on bail, defendant tested positive for drugs and absconded for three months). Further, Jones fails to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range gives rise to presumption of reasonableness, which defendant must rebut), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
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.
