Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03591/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03591-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry L. Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3591

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jerry L. Jones, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 3, 2006 

Filed: October 4, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry L. Jones appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Counsel argues that

Jones’s 37-month sentence is unreasonable because the court improperly applied an

obstruction-of-justice enhancement.

Appellate Case: 05-3591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2006 Entry ID: 2096102
-2-

We conclude that the enhancement was proper in light of Jones’s undisputed

presentencing conduct, which included using drugs and failing to appear for a court

hearing to show cause why his bond should not be revoked. See United States v.

Thomas, 72 F.3d 92, 93 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (whether obstruction-of-justice

enhancement applies to specific conduct is reviewed de novo; affirming enhancement

where, after pleading guilty and being released on bail, defendant tested positive for

drugs and absconded for three months). Further, Jones fails to rebut the presumption

that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18

(8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range gives rise to presumption of

reasonableness, which defendant must rebut), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2006 Entry ID: 2096102