Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04383/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Quedolthuis Miguel Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

QUEDOLTHUIS MIGUEL JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00050-3)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark P. Foster, Jr., NIXON, PARK, GRONQUIST & FOSTER, P.L.L.C.,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray,

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4383 Doc: 63 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Quedolthuis Miguel Jones appeals his sentence imposed

following a guilty plea to conspiring to commit a robbery in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000); robbery in violation of §

1951; and using or carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

924(c) (West 2000 and Supp. 2007). Jones was sentenced to 30

months’ imprisonment on the § 1951 violations and an additional 84

months on the § 924(c) violation. 

On appeal, Jones asserts that he should have been

sentenced to no more than five years for the § 924(c) violation.

According to Jones, the district court’s enhancement of his

sentence by two years based on a finding that the firearm was

brandished, which was not alleged in the indictment, admitted by

Jones, or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, violated his

Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Jones bases his argument

on Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007), which struck

down California’s determinate sentencing law. However, as Jones

acknowledges, the Supreme Court, in Harris v. United States, 536

U.S. 545 (2002), has already decided this issue adversely to his

position. Accordingly, as the Supreme Court has not overruled

Harris, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See

Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S.

477, 484 (1989). We dispense with oral argument as the facts and

Appeal: 07-4383 Doc: 63 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4383 Doc: 63 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 3 of 3