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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 [999827414]. [15-4402]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4402 Doc: 66 Filed: 05/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4402 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY ANTONIO JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cr-00176-DKC-1) Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4402 Doc: 66 Filed: 05/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Gary Antonio Jones was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession § 922(g)(1) by a (2012), imprisonment. erred of firearm, and in was violation sentenced of to 18 96 U.S.C. months’ On appeal, Jones argues that the district court denying his three motions to suppress evidence, considering certain information at his sentencing hearing, and applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. We affirm. 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 F.3d Because 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013). the district court denied Jones’ suppression motion, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, id., and defer to the district court’s credibility findings, United States v. erred in Patiutka, 804 F.3d 684, 689 (4th Cir. 2015). First, Jones asserts that the district court denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle, arguing that the ATF agents’ actions exceeded the scope of the traffic stop. 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. 2 We find that Jones’ Appeal: 15-4402 Doc: 66 conclusory, establish Filed: 05/19/2016 unsupported that the Pg: 3 of 5 assertions district to court’s the contrary decision fail was to clearly erroneous. Jones also contends that the district court erred in 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 vehicle vehicle. and could see radio and electronic equipment in the 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 at the police station. Jones claims that he made the incriminating statements after involuntarily waiving his Miranda * rights. 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). 3 Appeal: 15-4402 and Doc: 66 Filed: 05/19/2016 exhibited no coercive Pg: 4 of 5 conduct. Accordingly, we reject Jones’ contention that his Miranda waiver was involuntary. Next, Jones considering, contends and the that the Government arguments at sentencing. district erred court in erred making, in certain 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. United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 617 (4th Cir. 1997). Jones has not and demonstrated any extraordinary argument is therefore waived. circumstances this United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 772 (4th Cir. 2010). Finally applying a Jones asserts two-level that enhancement the district for court obstruction based on Jones’ perjured testimony at trial. erred of in justice Because Jones did not object to the enhancement, this court’s review is for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that Jones fails to demonstrate such error. Contrary to Jones’ assertion, the district court made a 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 dispense with oral argument because 4 the facts and legal Appeal: 15-4402 Doc: 66 contentions are Filed: 05/19/2016 adequately Pg: 5 of 5 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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?