Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01164/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1164

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Willie Jones, also known as Douchy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 29, 2004

Filed: August 11, 2004

 Vacated: August 27, 2004

 Reinstated: August 3, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Willie Jones pleaded guilty to two drug offenses, one of which carried a

mandatory term of life imprisonment because of Jones’s two prior felony drug

convictions. After granting the government’s motion for a downward departure based

on Jones’s substantial assistance, the district court1

 sentenced Jones to 280 months

imprisonment and 10 years supervised release, and ordered $460 restitution. On

Appellate Case: 04-1164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2004 Entry ID: 1798097 
-2-

appeal, Jones’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the adequacy of the factual basis for the

plea, and the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, including the

extent of the downward departure. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we affirm

for the following reasons.

Jones acknowledged he committed the acts comprising the elements of the

offenses to which he entered guilty pleas. See United States v. Marks, 38 F.3d 1009,

1012 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1067 (1995). We cannot review the

extent of the downward departure granted by the district court. See United States v.

Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1049-50 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). We find no

misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, or any other nonfrivolous issues, see

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. 

We also grant defense counsel's motion to withdraw. Counsel is reminded of

the obligations under Part V of this Court's Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan.

Specifically, counsel is to advise the defendant of the right to file a petition for writ

of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, and to inform the defendant

as to the merits and likelihood of success in the filing of such a petition. If counsel

determines there are meritorious issues, defense counsel shall assist the defendant in

filing a petition for writ of certiorari. If counsel determines there are no meritorious

issues warranting the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari, counsel shall advise the

defendant of the procedures for filing a petition pro se, and the time limits for the

filing of such a petition. Counsel shall file a certification with the clerk within 30

days certifying that he has complied with his obligations under Part V.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2004 Entry ID: 1798097