United States v. Jones

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

BENJAMIN JUSTIN JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Dennis L. Howell,
Magistrate Judge. (1:09-mj-00071-DLH-1)

Submitted: September 24, 2010 Decided: November 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, Ann L. Hester, Fredilyn Sison, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Thorneloe, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Justin Jones pled guilty to one count of

misdemeanor escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2006).

The district court sentenced Jones to 10 months’ imprisonment.

In this appeal, counsel for Jones filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether

Jones’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Jones did not file a pro se supplemental brief, though informed

of his right to do so. The Government elected not to file an

answering brief.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of

both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a

sentence. Id. This court must assess whether the district

court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range,

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any

arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained

the selected sentence. Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d

572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must

accompany every sentence.”); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this court

presumes a sentence within a properly determined advisory

2
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v.

Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that Jones’s sentence is both procedurally

and substantively reasonable. The district court properly

calculated Jones’s Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as

advisory, and considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. See

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).

Moreover, the district court based its sentence on its

“individualized assessment” of the facts of the case. Carter,

564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Jones has not rebutted the appellate

presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively

reasonable. Thus, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm Jones’s conviction and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Jones requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Jones.

3
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