US v. Jones
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY JONES, a/k/a Chemist, a/k/a Dog, Digity, a/k/a Digity Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00324-D)
March 30, 2007
April 19, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Gerald Beaver, BEAVER, HOLT, STERNLICHT & COURIE, P.A., Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Timothy Jones was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and was sentenced to life in prison. now appeals. He
His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with stating that there are
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), no meritorious grounds for appeal. supplemental brief. We affirm.
Jones has also filed a pro se
Jones first attacks the sufficiency of the evidence.
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we consider whether there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support the verdict. States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Glasser v. United
We do not review the credibility
of witnesses, and we assume the jury resolved all evidentiary contradictions in favor of the Government. 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Sun,
Our review of the trial
transcript convinces us that there was sufficient evidence to support both convictions. Jones also claims that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentence must be "within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable." 2005). Guideline United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir.
"[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated range . . . is presumptively reasonable." United
- 2 -
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006) (internal quotations marks omitted). Here, the life sentence is statutorily authorized. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). range was correctly calculated. See
Moreover, the advisory guideline With regard to the guideline
calculation, it is abundantly clear that Jones was the leader or organizer of an organization involving five or more people.
Therefore, the four-level enhancement of his offense level for his role in the offense was proper. Manual § 3B1.1(a) (2005). The district court imposed a sentence that was both within the statutory range and the properly calculated advisory guideline range. Additionally, the court considered the factors See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) in imposing sentence. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none.*
Accordingly, we affirm.
This court requires counsel to inform his
client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
In his informal brief, Jones complains about his convictions on firearm charges, contending that there was no evidence that the gun in question traveled in interstate commerce. We note that Jones was neither indicted for nor convicted of a firearm offense. - 3 -
would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a We dispense with oral
copy of the motion was served on the client.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 4 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?