United States of America v. Donovan Isaiah Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4304
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONOVAN ISAIAH JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00461-HMH-1)
Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Donovan Isaiah Jones was indicted for sale of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D)
(2006), and unlawful transport of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (West 2006 &
Supp. 2008). Jones pled guilty without the benefit of a written
plea agreement. The district court sentenced Jones to
concurrent terms of sixty months’ imprisonment and two years’
supervised release for the drug offense and 212 months’
imprisonment and five years’ supervised release for the firearms
conviction. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed
was reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11. We further find that the district court imposed a
sentence that is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)
(review of sentence is for abuse of discretion).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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 the client.
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

-- 3 of 3 --