US v. Jonathan Jarrell

Filing 920081016


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4133 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN JAMES JARRELL, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00123-2) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan abetting (2000), the and James Jarrell of to pled guilty 21 of to aiding and distribution was sentenced cocaine, a term U.S.C. 841(a)(1) months twenty-one imprisonment. Jarrell appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3E1.1 (2007), based on two positive drug tests while he was free on bond pending his sentencing. We affirm. Jarrell entered his guilty plea in September 2007 and was permitted to remain free on bond. In October 2007, he tested positive for cocaine use. He also tested positive for cocaine use and use of an opiate, Lortab, several days after the first positive violating incident detained. district test, the of At in November of 2007. his He subsequently including and admitted a third he was the was conditions use; release, was drug the his release revoked; January sentencing determined hearing that in 2008, court Jarrell's conduct inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility and denied the adjustment. is an Jarrell argues on appeal that the admitted drug use reason to deny him the adjustment, insufficient particularly in light of his admission of the offense conduct, guilty plea, and cooperation with investigators. 2 Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing. First, it must calculate the appropriate advisory It must then consider the resulting range in Guidelines range. conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) and determine an appropriate sentence. United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The guideline commentary on which the court relied in denying Jarrell the adjustment states that the court may consider whether the defendant has voluntarily withdrawn "from criminal conduct or associations." USSG 3E1.1 comment. (n.1(b)). This court has held that a defendant's continued use or sale of drugs after conviction may be a basis for denial of acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Underwood, 970 F.2d 1336, 1339 (4th Cir. 1992). drug use These decisions do not require multiple instances of to use warrant of denial after of a the adjustment, plea or only some continued drugs guilty conviction. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err when it held that Jarrell's continued involvement with drugs did not reflect acceptance of responsibility. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 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?