US v. James Jones
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ALBERT JONES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cr-01264-HMH-1)
January 15, 2009
January 22, 2009
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario A. Pacella, STROM Carolina, for Appellant. United States Attorney, Appellee.
LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Columbia, South Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant Greenville, South Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: James firearm by a Albert Jones pled guilty in to possession of 18 of a
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). minimum of 180 months'
He was sentenced to the mandatory and a five-year term of
supervised release. *
Jones' counsel has filed an appeal under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether Jones entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Jones specifically challenges the district court's
failure to vacate the plea when Jones stated at sentencing that he did not understand his mandatory minimum sentence. The
Government declined to file a brief. supplemental brief.
Jones has filed a pro se
Finding no error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Martinez, 277 A review of the transcript of
Jones' guilty plea hearing reveals that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Jones' plea was
The district court granted Jones' 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion raising a claim under United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1993), and reinstated judgment for purposes of allowing Jones to file an appeal.
voluntarily, of the
intelligently attendant to
Specifically, we find the district court informed Jones of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence he faced and Jones
acknowledged that he understood. error.
We therefore find no plain
We further find no merit to Jones' claim in his pro se
supplemental brief. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Jones' conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jones requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
was served on Jones. facts and legal before
contentions the court
decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?