UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VINCENT EDWARD JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:02-cr-00326-HFF-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Vincent Edward Jones pled guilty to being a 

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g) (2000) and possession with intent to distribute 50 

grams or more of cocaine base and 500 grams or more of cocaine 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). During the pendency 

of Jones’ sentencing hearing, he and the Government reached an 

agreement as to sentencing. The district court imposed the 

agreed upon 210-month sentence at the conclusion of Jones’ 

sentencing hearing. Jones then filed this timely appeal.

Jones’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the 

reasonableness of his sentence. Because we find no meritorious 

grounds for appeal, we affirm.

This court reviews a district court’s sentence for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. 

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). This review 

requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers 

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s 

advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, 
3

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Finally, 

this court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see 

whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding 

that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in 

§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 

(4th Cir. 2010). 

Here, the district court followed the necessary 

procedural steps in sentencing Jones, properly calculating the 

Guidelines sentence, considering the § 3553(a) factors, and 

sentencing Jones to a negotiated sentence of 210 months — some 

150 months below the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range. 

Hence, we determine that the sentence imposed by the district 

court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Jones in writing of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Jones requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel 

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Jones.
4

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