US v. Donovan Jones

Filing 920091001

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4304 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONOVAN ISAIAH JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00461-HMH-1) Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donovan marijuana in Isaiah of Jones 21 was U.S.C. indicted for sale of violation 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2006), and unlawful transport of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). plea Jones pled guilty without the benefit of a written The district court sentenced Jones to agreement. concurrent terms of sixty months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release for the drug offense and 212 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release for the firearms conviction. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. We Finding no error, we affirm. reviewed the record and conclude that the have district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We further find that the district court imposed a sentence that is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 2 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 filing would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 3

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?