From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jul 19, 2010
384 F. App'x 542 (8th Cir. 2010)

Summary

affirming the career offender enhancement based on an Arkansas robbery conviction because "a robbery specifically enumerated in § 4B1.2 is a crime of violence for career offender purposes"

Summary of this case from United States v. Stovall

Opinion

No. 08-1880.

Submitted: April 13, 2010.

Filed: July 19, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Karen Whatley, U.S. Attorney's Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paul Douglas Groce, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Christopher Adrian Jones, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.

Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.


UNPUBLISHED


Christopher Jones pleaded guilty to conspiracy to interrupt interstate commerce by robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). We reversed his mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) and remanded for resentencing because one prior robbery conviction did not involve use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon or result in serious bodily injury and thus was a non qualifying felony under § 3559(c)(3)(A). United States v. Jones, 256 Fed.Appx. 850 (8th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). On remand, Jones argued he should not be resentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because this robbery conviction was not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.

Although Jones stipulated he was a career offender in the plea agreement, the district court took up this issue on the merits and concluded that Jones is a career offender. Jones objected to the career offender ruling, which resulted in an advisory guidelines range of 262-327 months in prison, and, alternatively, urged the court to sentence him at the bottom of that range. The government urged a sentence at the top of the range. The court sentenced Jones to 300 months in prison. He appeals.

The HONORABLE JAMES M. MOODY, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

On appeal, Jones argues that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because this 1994 robbery conviction was not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. We disagree. The district court correctly ruled that robbery is specifically included in the crimes of violence listed in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, comment. (n. 1), and that a robbery specifically enumerated in § 4B1.2 is a crime of violence for career offender purposes even if it is not a qualifying serious violent felony under § 3559(c)(3)(A). See United States v. Dobbs, 449 F.3d 904, 913 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1139, 127 S.Ct. 994, 166 L.Ed.2d 751 549 U.S. 1233, 127 S.Ct. 1312, 167 L.Ed.2d 123 (2007). The court also correctly ruled that Jones's two 1994 robbery convictions were separate crimes of violence because they were separated by an intervening arrest. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(a), 4A1.2(a)(2), 4B1.2(c), App. C

Amendment 709; United States v. McKay, Accordingly, the judgment of the district 431 F.3d 1085, 1095 (8th Cir. 2005), cert, court is affirmed. denied, 547 U.S. 1174, 126 S.Ct. 2345, 164 L.Ed.2d 859 (2006).


Summaries of

U.S. v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jul 19, 2010
384 F. App'x 542 (8th Cir. 2010)

affirming the career offender enhancement based on an Arkansas robbery conviction because "a robbery specifically enumerated in § 4B1.2 is a crime of violence for career offender purposes"

Summary of this case from United States v. Stovall
Case details for

U.S. v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Adrian JONES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Jul 19, 2010

Citations

384 F. App'x 542 (8th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

United States v. Stovall

See United States v. Farris , 312 Fed. Appx. 598, 599 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that Arkansas aggravated…

United States v. Pettis

Because application notes are generally controlling, the Eighth Circuit has also consistently treated robbery…