US v. Tiffany Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00056-RLV-DSC-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999088607].. [12-4697]

Appeal: 12-4697

Doc: 42

Filed: 04/17/2013

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TIFFANY MAE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00056-RLV-DSC-4)

Submitted:

March 29, 2013

Decided:

April 17, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4697

Doc: 42

Filed: 04/17/2013

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Tiffany

Mae

Jones

was

indicted

along

with

seven

co-defendants and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent
to

distribute

oxycodone,

as

well

as

two

substantive

counts,

including possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, and
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and
abetting the same.

Jones pleaded guilty to all three counts

without the benefit of a plea agreement.

The district court

granted a downward variance and sentenced Jones to thirty-three
months

of

imprisonment.

On

appeal,

Jones

challenges

the

district court’s calculation of drug quantity attributed to her
and contends that she should have received a mitigating role
reduction for having a minimal role in the offense.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
We review Jones’s sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential
States,

abuse-of-discretion

552

U.S.

38,

41,

51

standard.”
(2007).

Gall

This

v.

United

review

entails

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
procedural
district

reasonableness,
court

properly

this

Id. at 51.
court

calculated

In determining

the

considers

whether

defendant’s

the

advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue

for

an

appropriate

sentence,

considered

the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly
2

Appeal: 12-4697

Doc: 42

Filed: 04/17/2013

erroneous

facts,

sentence.

Id. at 49-51.
If

error,

this

and

Pg: 3 of 6

the

sufficiently

sentence

is

free

reviews

it

for

court

explained

of

the

significant

substantive

selected

procedural

reasonableness,

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
at

51.

If

the

sentence

is

within

or

below

the

Id.

properly

calculated Guidelines range, the court applies a presumption on
appeal

that

States

v.

the

is

674

F.3d

sentence

Guidelines

Susi,

sentence

is

substantively

278,

289

(4th

entitled

reasonable.

United

Cir.

(below

to

2012)

presumption

of

reasonableness); United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
217 (4th Cir. 2010).

Such a presumption is rebutted only if the

defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.”
445

F.3d

375,

379

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Montes-Pineda,
2006)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Jones alleges that the district court erred in relying
on the testimony of her co-defendant, Amber Babb, in determining
drug

quantity

because

Babb’s

testimony

was

unreliable.

In

particular, she cites the inaccuracies regarding the time frame
that she could have distributed oxycodone pills in 2010 because
part of that year she was incarcerated.

The Government counters

that the court’s drug quantity finding was based on drug amounts
with which Jones was directly involved and not based entirely on
3

Appeal: 12-4697

Babb’s

Doc: 42

Filed: 04/17/2013

statements.

Pg: 4 of 6

Further,

the

Government

argues,

because

Jones was convicted of conspiracy to distribute any quantities
involved in the conspiracy that were reasonably foreseeable to
Jones were attributable.
We review the district court’s “drug quantity finding
for clear error.”

United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147

(4th Cir. 2009).

This deferential standard of review requires

reversal only if this court, upon review of the record as a
whole, “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.”
242

(2001)

(internal

Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234,

quotation

marks

omitted).

It

is

well

settled that, when determining the drug quantity to attribute to
a defendant convicted of a drug conspiracy, “the district court
may

attribute

to

the

defendant

the

total

amount

of

drugs

involved in the conspiracy, provided the drug quantities were
reasonably foreseeable to the defendant and are within the scope
of the conspiratorial agreement.”

United States v. Randall, 171

F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999).
The district court’s approximation of drug weight was
based on amounts with which Jones was directly involved.
evidence

showed

that

Jones

participated

in

and

was

The

present

during trips to Florida to obtain oxycodone pills and that, in
addition to distributing pills herself, also discussed the North
Carolina

distribution

process

with
4

co-conspirator

Adam

Jones.

Appeal: 12-4697

Doc: 42

There

was

court’s

Filed: 04/17/2013

also

finding

involved.

sufficient

Pg: 5 of 6

regarding

evidence
the

to

support

number

of

the

district

oxycodone

pills

In addition to Babb’s testimony, there were specific

examples of Jones’s drug distribution activities described in
the presentence report and corroborated by statements from other
co-conspirators regarding Jones’s involvement.
Accordingly, Jones fails to establish any clear error
in

the

district

court’s

attributable to her.

calculation

of

the

drug

quantity

See Kellam, 568 F.3d at 147 (noting that

the district court’s drug quantity finding must be supported by
a preponderance of the evidence and concluding that testimony
received at trial and sentencing supported the court’s finding);
Randall, 171 F.3d at 210-11 (explaining that a defendant bears
the burden of establishing that information in the presentence
report the district court relied on in calculating the relevant
drug quantity is incorrect).
Jones also challenges the district court’s refusal to
apply a mitigating role adjustment, which we review for clear
error.

See United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.

2012).

Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2

(2011),

a

district

court

may

decrease

a

defendant’s

offense

level upon finding that the defendant played a minor or minimal
role

in

the

offense.

In

light

of

the

evidence

previously

discussed, including Jones’s role in the conspiracy throughout
5

Appeal: 12-4697

Doc: 42

Filed: 04/17/2013

Pg: 6 of 6

its duration, controlled buys from Jones, her presence on doctor
shopping

trips

in

Florida,

and

her

discussions

about

the

conspiracy with Adam Jones and others, we conclude that Jones’s
role was “material or essential to committing the offense[s],”
United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999)
(internal

quotation

marks

omitted),

and

determine

that

the

district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply the
adjustment.
We

therefore

conclude

that

the

district

sentence was reasonable and affirm the judgment.

court’s

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6