US v. Thurman Jones, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00055-FL-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999667797].. [15-4026]

Appeal: 15-4026

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THURMAN LEE JONES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00055-FL-2)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

September 29, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker,
Kristine
L.
Fritz,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4026

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Thurman Lee Jones, Jr. pleaded guilty to use of a firearm
during a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)

(2012).

The

district

court

sentenced

Jones

to

60

months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised
release.

Following

Jones’

release

from

incurred four state criminal convictions.

incarceration,

he

The district court

revoked his supervised release and sentenced Jones to 24 months
of imprisonment, followed by one year of supervised release, and
Jones now appeals.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Jones challenges the district court’s finding
that one of his violations was a Grade A violation under the
Sentencing

Guidelines

because

it

was

a

crime

of

violence

punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment.
also

argues

that

the

court

failed

to

adequately

Jones

explain

the

sentence.
We review a sentence imposed as a result of a supervised
release violation to determine whether the sentence was plainly
unreasonable, generally following the procedural and substantive
considerations employed in reviewing original sentences.
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).

United

Although a

district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter
Seven

of

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

along

with

the

statutory

factors, “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke
2

Appeal: 15-4026

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to
the

statutory

quotation

maximum.”

marks

Crudup,

omitted).

461

While

the

F.3d

at

court

439

(internal

must

provide

a

statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, this statement
“need not be as detailed or specific” as that required for an
original sentence.

See United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544,

547 (4th Cir. 2010).
Under
state

the

Guidelines,

offense

punishable

conduct
by

a

constituting

term

a

exceeding

federal

one

year

or
of

imprisonment that is a crime of violence is a Grade A violation.
U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 7B1.1(a)

(2014).

The

determination of the grade of the violation “is to be based on
the

defendant’s

actual

conduct,”

the

conviction

USSG § 7B1.1(a) cmt. n.1.

incurred for the conduct.

rather

than

A crime of

violence is defined as any offense punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year, that “(1) has as an element the
use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against
the person of another, or (2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson,
or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves
conduct

that

presents

injury to another.”

a

serious

potential

risk

of

physical

USSG § 4B1.2(a).

In reviewing the district court’s calculations under the
Guidelines, “we review the district court’s legal conclusions de
novo

and

its

factual

findings
3

for

clear

error.”

United

Appeal: 15-4026

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

We will “find clear error only if, on

the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
have

thoroughly

reviewed

the

record

and

Id. at 631.

conclude

that

We
the

district court did not err in classifying Jones’ violation as a
Grade A violation under the Guidelines.
that

Jones

has

not

demonstrated

that

We further conclude
the

district

court’s

explanation for the sentence constituted reversible error.

See

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4