United States v. Phillip Jones, Jr., No. 22-1654 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's sentence, an upward variance, was not substantively unreasonable as the district court did not abuse its discretion in assigning greater weight to the aggravating circumstances in the case.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1654 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Phillip Neal Jones, Jr. Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: January 9, 2023 Filed: March 14, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Phillip Jones, Jr., appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jones left a loaded gun in his apartment, and children who were left alone there discovered it. One of them accidentally fired the gun, killing a six-year-old boy. Jones pleaded guilty. Jones’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment. Based on the fact that his crime involved the death of a young child, his extensive criminal history, and his three prior felon-in-possession convictions, the district court 1 varied upward and sentenced him to 57 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jones argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. This is not “the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence . . . as substantively unreasonable.” See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court has wide latitude to weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Stephen, 984 F.3d 625, 633 (8th Cir. 2021). We previously affirmed a much larger upward variance when a defendant’s dangerous conduct endangered children. United States v. Godfrey, 863 F.3d 1088, 1092-94 (8th Cir. 2017). And we have affirmed substantial upward variances when a defendant repeated his prior criminal conduct. See, e.g., United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (8th Cir. 2012). Although Jones disagrees with how the district court weighed the factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing more heavily aggravating factors under § 3553(a) to vary upward. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461. We therefore affirm Jones’s sentence. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
