United States of America v. WILLIE BYRON JONES, Sr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE BYRON JONES, Sr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10347
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-08014-GMS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 9, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Willie Byron Jones, Sr. appeals the 183-month sentence he received after
pleading guilty to charges of Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury and Use of
a Firearm in a Crime of Violence. Jones faced these charges and others after he
FILED
MAR 07 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

shot a police officer who responded to a complaint that he was drunk and
disorderly. Because we find that Jones waived his right to appeal his sentence, we
dismiss the appeal.
Jones’s plea agreement included a broad appellate waiver where Jones
waived the right to appeal “any aspect of [his] sentence.” Jones argues that the
waiver is unenforceable because the government purportedly breached the plea
agreement. This purported breach occurred when the government argued to the
district court that a 120-month sentence was inappropriate despite stipulating in the
plea agreement to a sentence between 120 and 240 months. We disagree that this
constitutes a breach of the agreement. The government did not promise to refrain
from arguing against a sentence at the low end of the stipulated range. C.f. United
States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1234 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the
government breached a plea agreement when it promised to recommend a specific
sentence and not to “seek, argue or suggest in any way” that the district court
impose a different sentence, but then submitted a sentencing position aggressively
intimating that a higher sentence was warranted (emphasis in original)). Jones
offers no other valid reason not to enforce the appellate waiver. Therefore,
because the waiver covers the grounds raised on appeal and Jones fails to show he
entered into the agreement unknowingly or involuntarily, the appeal must be
dismissed. United States v. Rivera, 682 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2012).

-- 2 of 3 --

Appeal DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --