United States of America v. ROBERT E. JONES, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT E. JONES, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-2441
D.C. No.
2:19-cr-00262-JCC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert E. Jones, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 3-month term of imprisonment and 21-month term of supervised
release imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 19 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-2441
Jones contends that the district court erred by failing to (1) calculate the
Guidelines range on the record; (2) consider his arguments or the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors; and (3) explain the sentence adequately. We review
for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that probation
calculated the undisputed 7-13 month Guidelines range and recommended a 3-
month sentence and 21-month term of supervision, both to sanction Jones for his
breach of the court’s trust and to permit him another opportunity to address his
substance use issues. The record further reflects that, after reviewing probation’s
memorandum and hearing argument from Jones and the government, the court
adopted probation’s recommendation and imposed the significantly below-
Guidelines sentence. On this record, and in light of the district court’s familiarity
with Jones’s history during his previous term of supervision, Jones has not shown a
reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence in the
absence of the alleged errors. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762
(9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --