United States v. Janson Jones, Sr.

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, DIANA E. MURPHY and DUANE BENTON (UNPUBLISHED) [3770342] [10-2778]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2778 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Janson A. Jones, Sr., Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: December 20, 2010 Filed: March 25, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Janson Jones, Sr., challenges the district court’s1 revocation of his supervised release and the resulting revocation sentence. The district court specifically found a “new law violation” – an assault allegedly witnessed by a police officer. The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous in light of the court’s decision to credit the testimony of the government’s witnesses over that of Jones and his witness. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; because credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal, 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 10-2778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2011 Entry ID: 3770342 district court’s conclusion that defendant committed assault was not clear error where court implicitly found accuser’s testimony credible and defendant’s testimony not credible). This court affirms the judgment of the district court and grants counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Jones about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 10-2778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2011 Entry ID: 3770342

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?