US v. Benjamin Jones, No. 10-4023 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BENJAMIN JUSTIN JONES, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). both the court Id. properly reasonableness under an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires appellate consideration of procedural sentence. for and substantive reasonableness of a This court must assess whether the district 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 presumes (4th a Cir. sentence 2009) (same). within a 2 In properly addition, this determined court advisory 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 individualized assessment of the facts of the case. 564 F.3d at 328. on its Carter, 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 representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jones. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
