United States v. Eric Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Eric Jones (Jones) appeals the 130-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 5 grams or more of crack cocaine (count one), two counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 5 grams or more of methamphetamine (counts two and four), three counts of sale of a firearm to a prohibited person (counts three, five, and six), and one count of unlawful traf- *696 fieking of firearms (count seven). Because the district court exceeded the statutory maximum sentence, we vacate Jones’s sentence on .counts three, five, and six. Because the sentences on the remaining counts were affected by the sentence on counts three, five, and six, we remand for resentencing on all counts.

Jones was arrested after he sold guns and drugs to a confidential informant working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and was indicted in a seven count indictment. Jones pled guilty to all counts, without a plea agreement. A Presentence Report (PSR) was prepared prior to sentencing. Jones made two objections to the PSR, claiming (1) he was not a member of the Da’ Vil gang,…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Because the majority applies the wrong standard of review and incorrectly interprets the meaning of § 2Dl.l(b)(12) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, I respectfully dissent from that part of its disposition. I agree that the sentence imposed by the district court on counts three, five, and six was improper because it exceeded the statutory maximum, and I agree that the sentence on the remaining counts was affected by that error, and so I would also remand for re-sentencing on all *698 counts. I also agree that the district court did not violate Rule 32 in finding that Jones was a gang member, that the finding of gang membership by the district court was not clear error, and that the conditions of supervised release are neither procedurally erroneous nor substantively unreasonable. However, I would vacate Jones’ sentence on all counts for a second, independent reason. Under our precedent, section 2D l.l(b)(12)’s two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs is not properly invoked by the limited facts of Jones’ case.

On appeal, we review challenges to a district…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FILED

AUG 15 2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10206

Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00674-JSW-

v. AMENDED

ERIC JONES, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted on May 12, 2014 San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District Judge.**

Appellant Eric Jones (Jones) appeals the 130-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute and

distribution of 5 grams or more of crack cocaine (count one), two counts of

possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 5 grams or more of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Ivan L. R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S.…