Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03389/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Adrian Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3389

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Christopher Adrian Jones, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2007 

Filed: December 4, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The panel in this case directed supplemental briefing from the parties on the

issue of whether the predicate felony offenses used to impose a mandatory life

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) constituted three separate serious violent felonies.

The parties have filed supplemental briefs. The government now concedes that 18

U.S.C. § 3559(c)(3)(A) precludes the use of the robbery convictions previously relied

upon to impose the mandatory life sentence. The government also concedes that the

use of the predicate offenses to impose a life sentence constitutes clear error and asks

that the matter be remanded for resentencing without the mandatory life sentence.

Appellate Case: 06-3389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378444
1

We also express no opinion as to whether the recent amendments to the federal

sentencing guidelines dealing with separate sentences under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 has any

applicability to this case.

-2-

The sentence in this case is reversed and the matter is remanded to the district

court for resentencing without the imposition of a mandatory life sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3559(c). Based on the government’s concession that the robbery convictions

are not valid predicate offenses for purposes of the imposition of a life sentence, the

court expresses no opinion as to whether each of the offenses qualifies as separate

convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1)(B). Likewise, the court expresses no

opinion as to the ultimate sentence to be imposed in this case, and no opinion as to

whether the defendant qualifies as a career offender under the federal sentencing

guidelines.1

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378444