United States v. Brian Bear Heels

05-3294Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.10.2006

Gesamter Gesetzestext

1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-3591
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Jerry L. Jones, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: October 3, 2006
Filed: October 4, 2006
___________
Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Jerry L. Jones appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Counsel argues that
Jones’s 37-month sentence is unreasonable because the court improperly applied an
obstruction-of-justice enhancement.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
We conclude that the enhancement was proper in light of Jones’s undisputed
presentencing conduct, which included using drugs and failing to appear for a court
hearing to show cause why his bond should not be revoked. See United States v.
Thomas, 72 F.3d 92, 93 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (whether obstruction-of-justice
enhancement applies to specific conduct is reviewed de novo; affirming enhancement
where, after pleading guilty and being released on bail, defendant tested positive for
drugs and absconded for three months). Further, Jones fails to rebut the presumption
that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18
(8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range gives rise to presumption of
reasonableness, which defendant must rebut), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).
After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.