Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Ronald Lee Jones. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Jones' motion to modify his sentence. The district court had denied the motion in a margin order, stating that Jones was sentenced as a career offender, so Amendment 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines would not provide a lower sentence. As Amendment 599 would be inapplicable for defendants sentenced as career offenders, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-12-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7412

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Ronald Lee Jones. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Jones' motion to modify his sentence. The district court had denied the motion in a margin order, stating that Jones was sentenced as a career offender, so Amendment 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines would not provide a lower sentence. As Amendment 599 would be inapplicable for defendants sentenced as career offenders, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Ronald Lee Jones. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Jones' motion to modify his sentence. The district court had denied the motion in a margin order, stating that Jones was sentenced as a career offender, so Amendment 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines would not provide a lower sentence. As Amendment 599 would be inapplicable for defendants sentenced as career offenders, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-7412

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RONALD LEE JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (1:96-cr-00191-avb)

    Submitted:

    December 13, 2007

    Decided:

    December 21, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ronald Lee Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


    Charles Philip Rosenberg,
    United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald Lee Jones appeals the district courts margin
    order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
    3582(c)(2) (2000). Jones argued that he qualified for a sentence
    reduction

    under

    Sentencing

    Guidelines

    Amendment

    599,

    U.S.

    Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) App. C (Supp. 2000), which


    amended the application notes of USSG 2K2.4.

    In its margin

    notation denying the action, the district court stated that Jones
    sentence
    Because

    [was]

    calculated

    Amendment

    599

    as

    would

    a
    not

    career
    provide

    offender.
    Jones

    with

    (R.

    57).

    lower

    sentence, see United States v. Hickey, 280 F.3d 65, 69 (lst Cir.
    2002) (holding that because defendant was sentenced as a career
    offender, Amendment 599 was inapplicable), we affirm.

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like