US v. Gary Antonio Jone
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00176-DKC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . [15-4402]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
GARY ANTONIO JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
March 31, 2016
May 19, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Joseph R. Baldwin, Mara Zusman Greenberg, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
Gary Antonio Jones was convicted by a jury of being a felon
On appeal, Jones argues that the district court
considering certain information at his sentencing hearing, and
applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of
When considering the denial of a motion to suppress, we
review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its
factual findings for clear error.
United States v. McGee, 736
denied Jones’ suppression motion, we construe the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Government, id., and defer to
Patiutka, 804 F.3d 684, 689 (4th Cir. 2015).
denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle,
arguing that the ATF agents’ actions exceeded the scope of the
Crediting the testimony of the ATF agents, which
included testimony that an agent asked Jones to exit the car in
order to investigate the odor of alcohol, the district court
determined that the stop was reasonable.
We find that Jones’
Pg: 3 of 5
denying his motion to suppress recordings of statements he made
while seated in the back of a police vehicle.
In order to
succeed on this motion, Jones was required to show that he had a
subjective expectation of privacy in the police vehicle and that
this expectation was objectively reasonable.
Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 164 (4th Cir. 2010).
United States v.
The district court
determined that, although Jones had a subjective expectation of
privacy when he made the statements, this expectation was not
objectively reasonable, given that Jones knew he was in a police
We discern no error in the district court’s analysis.
Jones asserts that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress the statements he made during his interview
incriminating statements after involuntarily waiving his Miranda *
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in finding that the officers
provided a full and complete recitation of Jones’ Miranda rights
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Pg: 4 of 5
Jones’ contention that his Miranda waiver was involuntary.
arguments at sentencing.
Because Jones was the party who first
raised the challenged subject, we conclude that any error from
the court’s consideration of this material was invited.
States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 617 (4th Cir. 1997).
argument is therefore waived.
United States v. Hickman, 626
F.3d 756, 772 (4th Cir. 2010).
based on Jones’ perjured testimony at trial.
Because Jones did
not object to the enhancement, this court’s review is for plain
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir.
We conclude that Jones fails to demonstrate such error.
sufficient explanation of its perjury finding, as required by
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94-95 (1993).
Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ conviction and sentence. We
Pg: 5 of 5
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?