US v. Vaughnta Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:06-cr-01169-CMC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998719510].. [10-5283]

Appeal: 10-5283

Document: 40

Date Filed: 11/09/2011

Page: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5283

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VAUGHNTA MARKEES JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:06-cr-01169-CMC-1)

Submitted:

November 1, 2011

Decided:

November 9, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scarlet B. Moore, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert C. Jendron, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5283

Document: 40

Date Filed: 11/09/2011

Page: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Vaughnta Markees Jones appeals his 168-month sentence
for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon (“Count Five”) and
possessing a sawed-off shotgun (“Count Seven”), in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) and 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and
5871 (2006), respectively.

Jones’ counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which
she states that she could identify no meritorious issues for
appeal, but questions whether Jones’ guilty plea was valid and
whether his sentence is reasonable.
informal

brief,

raising

conviction and sentence.

several

Jones has filed a pro se
issues

relating

to

his

Having reviewed the record, we affirm

the judgment of the district court.
Jones dedicates significant portions of his informal
brief to protesting the merits of the district court’s denial of
his pretrial motion to suppress.
waives

such

an

alleged

However, a valid guilty plea

antecedent

jurisdictional

defect.

Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); United States v.
Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993).

Although the record

suggests that the parties contemplated that Jones would be able
to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, his guilty plea
is not expressly conditioned on his ability to pursue that issue
on appeal.

Because “direct review of an adverse ruling on a

pre-trial motion is available only if the defendant expressly
2

Appeal: 10-5283

Document: 40

Date Filed: 11/09/2011

Page: 3 of 6

preserves that right by entering a conditional guilty plea,”
this court can consider Jones’ motion to suppress only in the
context of determining whether Jones’ guilty plea was voluntary.
United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 52 (4th Cir. 1990).
Because Jones did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea
below, this court reviews it for plain error.

United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002).

To establish

plain error, Jones must show that “(1) an error was made; (2)
the

error

rights.”

is

plain;

and

(3)

the

error

affects

substantial

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342–43 (4th

Cir. 2009).

“If all three of these conditions are met, an

appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a
forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the
fairness,

integrity,

proceedings.”

or

public

reputation

of

judicial

United States v. Carr, 303 F.3d 539, 543 (4th

Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations
omitted).
Even assuming that Jones would not have entered an
unconditional guilty plea had the district court advised him of
its effect on his ability to appeal the denial of the motion to
suppress, we decline to exercise our discretion to correct the
error,

because

without merit.

it

is

clear

that

the

Carr, 303 F.3d at 543.

motion

to

suppress

is

Jones’ motion challenged

the search of the rental car he was driving, despite the fact
3

Appeal: 10-5283

Document: 40

Date Filed: 11/09/2011

Page: 4 of 6

that he was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement.
It has been long-settled in this circuit that Jones, “as an
unauthorized driver of the rented car, had no legitimate privacy
interest

in

complains

the

car

cannot

and,

have

therefore,

violated

his

the

search

Fourth

of

which

Amendment

he

rights.”

United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117, 119 (4th Cir. 1994).
Because any error deprived Jones only of the ability to pursue
an

argument

that

is

conclusively

foreclosed

by

longstanding

precedent, neither the fairness nor integrity of the proceedings
below was impaired, and we decline to notice the error.

Carr,

303 F.3d at 543.
With respect to Jones’ sentence, our review is for
reasonableness,

applying

an

abuse

of

discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
that

the

district

court

committed

no

standard.

We first ensure

significant

procedural

error, “such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating)
the

Guidelines

range,

treating

the

Guidelines

as

mandatory,

failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence
based

on

clearly

erroneous

facts,

explain the chosen sentence.”
committed,

we

review

reasonableness,

taking

circumstances.”

Id.

Id.

the
into

or

failing

to

adequately

If no procedural error was
sentence

account

the

for

substantive

“totality

of

the

In this respect, “an appellate court must

defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence only if it
4

Appeal: 10-5283

Document: 40

Date Filed: 11/09/2011

Page: 5 of 6

is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been the
choice of the appellate court.”
F.3d

155,

sentence

160

that

(4th
falls

Cir.

United States v. Evans, 526

2008)

within

a

(emphasis

properly

range is presumptively reasonable.

in

original).

calculated

A

Guidelines

United States v. Allen, 491

F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have thoroughly reviewed the arguments raised by
Jones in his informal brief pertaining to his sentencing and
determine that they are without merit.

See United States v.

Hampton, 628 F.3d 654, 659 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of
review).

See also United States v. Hood, 628 F.3d 669, 672-73

(4th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2138 (2011).
we

discern

any

other

error——procedural

or

Nor do

substantive——with

respect to the within-Guidelines sentence imposed upon Jones.
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 judgment of the district court.

This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of
the 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

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Jones.
5

Appeal: 10-5283

Document: 40

Date Filed: 11/09/2011

Page: 6 of 6

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

6