USA v. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
OCTAVION RAYSHAWN JONES,
Defendant.
Case No. 24‐CR‐0227 (PJS/SGE)
ORDER
Defendant Octavion Jones pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a machine
gun and was sentenced to 31 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
ECF No. 49. The Court ordered that this federal sentence should “run concurrently to
any term of imprisonment imposed in connection with the gun‐ or ammunition‐related
charges in Ramsey County District Court Case No. 62‐CR‐23‐3294, and consecutively to
any other term of imprisonment imposed by any federal or state court.” Id.
This matter is before the Court on Jones’s motion to correct his sentence.
Specifically, Jones contends that, because Ramsey County District Court Case
No. 62‐CR‐23‐3294 was later dismissed, his federal sentence should be corrected to
specify that it should be concurrent to the sentences he received in Ramsey County
District Court Case No. 62‐CR‐23‐3269 (for aiding and abetting first‐degree aggravated
robbery) and Ramsey County District Court Case No. 62‐CR‐23‐3591 (for first‐degree
aggravated robbery).
CASE 0:24-cr-00227-PJS-SGE Doc. 57 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 3

Jones does not cite any procedural vehicle for this motion, and it is denied on
that basis alone.1 Even if it were properly before the Court, however, the Court would
deny it. The Court imposed Jones’s federal sentence to run concurrently to any
sentence imposed in Case No. 62‐CR‐23‐3294 because the underlying conduct in Case
No. 62‐CR‐23‐3294 is the same conduct for which Jones was sentenced in this case. The
Court’s intent was to avoid subjecting Jones to “double punishment” for the same
conduct. As Case No. 62‐CR‐23‐3294 was dismissed, there is no danger of that
happening.
At the time it sentenced Jones, the Court was aware of Case Nos. 62‐CR‐23‐3269
and 62‐CR‐23‐3591, as they were pending at the time of his federal sentencing. See PSR
¶¶ 42, 44. Those cases involve separate conduct from the conduct at issue in this case.
Accordingly, the Court specifically chose—and specified at the sentencing
hearing—that his federal sentence should run consecutively to any sentence imposed in
any other federal or state case, including those two cases, as the Court believed it
1Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), a court may correct a sentence that “resulted from
arithmetical, technical, or other clear error,” but only within 14 days after the sentence
was imposed. It is possible that Jones could seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but as
Jones filed the motion through counsel, the Court will not recharacterize it. Cf. Castro v.
United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003) (describing the circumstances under which a
district court may recharacterize a pro se motion as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and
setting forth the procedures that a court must follow before doing so).
-2-
CASE 0:24-cr-00227-PJS-SGE Doc. 57 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 3

appropriate for Jones to be subject to additional punishment for conduct that has
nothing to do with this case. There is accordingly no error to correct.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion to correct his sentence [ECF No.
56] is DENIED.
Dated: March 25, 2026 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-3-
CASE 0:24-cr-00227-PJS-SGE Doc. 57 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 3