United States v. Anthony Jones, Jr., No. 22-2158 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of a six-count federal indictment -- carjacking resulting in death (Count 1); discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(j) (Count 2); and two counts of witness tampering (Counts 5 and 6). The government agreed to drop Counts 3 and 4. The parties agreed to jointly recommend a sentence of 360 months imprisonment. Defendant timely objected to a statement in his presentence investigation report (PSR) that the sentence imposed for Count 2 must be consecutive to the other counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Defendant argued that violations of Section 924(c) and § 924(j) are separate offenses and that Section 924(j) does not require consecutive sentencing. The district court overruled the objection, accepted the guilty plea but not the 360-month recommendation, and imposed a within-range sentence of 540 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing the court procedurally erred in imposing a mandatory consecutive sentence for Count 2 and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Defendant’s disagreement with how the district court weighed the relevant sentencing factors does not justify reversal. Accordingly, the court held that, in light of the seriousness of Defendant’s crimes and lengthy criminal history, the district court was well within its substantial discretion in sentencing Defendant to a within-guidelines-range term of imprisonment.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) and 924(j) are separate offenses, and the district court has the discretion to impose consecutive sentences on the two counts; while the district court erred in determining the imposition of consecutive sentences was mandatory - see U.S. v. Lora, 599 U.S.___ (June 16, 2023) - the error was harmless where the court stated that if the matter was subject to the court's discretion, it would exercise its authority to run the sentences consecutively because of the facts of the case; the within-guidelines range sentence imposed in the case was not substantively unreasonable.
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.