United States of America v. Eric Jones

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10476
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00674-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Eric Jones appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 130-
month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing following his guilty-plea
conviction for narcotics and weapons offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii) and (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1) and (d). We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-10476
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jones contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address
his mitigating arguments and explain the sentence adequately. The record reflects
that the district court considered Jones’s mitigating arguments, which he asserted
in his sentencing memorandum and again at the sentencing hearing, and simply
found them insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the one it originally
imposed. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007). The court’s
reasons for the sentence are evident from the record. See id. at 359. We are
unpersuaded by Jones’s suggestion that the court’s failure to comment specifically
on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors shows that it did not consider them. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Jones next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --