United States v. Gerald Jones, No. 18-3284 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court properly relied on testimony and evidence presented at sentencing to resolve disputed portions of the presentence report and defendant's due process claim is rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3284 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Gerald A. Jones lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: July 19, 2019 Filed: July 24, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gerald A. Jones directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin, pursuant to a written plea 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. agreement. Counsel seeks permission to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Jones’s due process rights were violated at sentencing. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the due process argument fails on the merits. Specifically, the district court properly relied on testimony and evidence presented at sentencing in resolving disputed portions of the PSR. See United States v. Kozohorsky, 708 F.3d 1028, 1033 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d 1165, 1170-71 (8th Cir. 2009). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
