United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3568

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

James A. Jones

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: June 13, 2022

Filed: September 27, 2022

____________

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

On November 9, 2020, a Kansas City nightclub surveillance camera recorded

Raymond Douglas pulling a gun as he approached a parked vehicle. Someone in the

vehicle shot Douglas. James Jones was in the parking lot. He picked up the gun

Douglas dropped and left the scene before police arrived. Douglas was transported

to a hospital and pronounced dead. The next day, police stopped Jones driving a

vehicle and took him into custody on an outstanding felony warrant. On the front
passenger seat, they found a holstered handgun in a green bag that also contained

83.5 grams of marijuana and a digital scale. In the center console were eleven

counterfeit $100 bills and $1,843 in cash. Jones denied being involved in the

shooting but admitted he took the gun, knew he was a convicted felon, regularly

smoked marijuana, and sold marijuana to supplement his income. 

Jones was charged with and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm

by a felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2). The presentence investigation

report recommended an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 57 to 71 months

imprisonment, based on Jones’s prior conviction for a crime of violence (seconddegree robbery) plus enhancements for possessing a stolen firearm and possession in

connection with another felony offense. See USSG §§ 2K2.1(a)(4), (b)(4), (b)(6). 

At sentencing, the district court1 overruled Jones’s objection to the stolen firearm

enhancement, adopted the PSR’s recommended guidelines range, and sentenced Jones

to 71 months imprisonment, the top of that range. Jones appeals, arguing the

sentence is substantively unreasonable. Reviewing the sentence under the governing

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, we affirm. See United States v. Feemster,

572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review).

At sentencing, stating that it was crafting a sentence sufficient but not greater

than necessary to comply with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, the district court noted

that Jones's unlawful possession of a firearm with drugs and counterfeit money was

inconsistent with his claim that he was a man trying to change his life. The court

observed that the offense conduct continued Jones’s history of crimes involving

firearms and deadly weapons -- the prior second-degree robbery conviction and nine

robbery and armed criminal action charges pending in state court. The court

1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
concluded that “ultimately my obligation [is] to protect the public” and that carrying

guns and drugs naturally leads to shootings and other public harms.

A sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. 

United States v. Huston, 744 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2014). Jones argues his 71-

month sentence at the top of his guidelines range is nonetheless substantively

unreasonable because the range includes a four-level, 20-to-25-month increase for

possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Without the

enhancement, his advisory range would be 37 to 46 months. He concedes the

guidelines range was properly calculated because a four-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

enhancement is imposed regardless of the severity of the other felony offense. But

he argues this is an unreasonably disproportionate increase because the advisory

range for the other felony offense that triggered the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) increase --

possession with intent to distribute small, user amounts of marijuana -- is 2 to 8

months. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(17), Ch. 5, Pt. A. Thus, a properly proportionate

increase for this other felony offense would result in a 39 to 54 month advisory range. 

After careful review, we conclude this is not the “unusual case” where we

should reverse a sentencing decision as substantively unreasonable. Feemster, 572

F.3d at 464. Jones’s argument, while perhaps plausible with a different sentencing

record, founders on the facts of this case. As the government notes, possession with

intent to distribute small, user amounts of marijuana is not the only other felony

offense that Jones likely committed. Also in his vehicle were multiple counterfeit

bills likely used to purchase marijuana that produced the $1,843 in cash. And

possession of the firearm with a distribution quantity of marijuana subjected him to

an additional charge of possession in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18

U.S.C. § 924(c), an offense that results in a minimum consecutive five-year sentence. 

Thus, properly applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement did not result in a

“disproportionately” unreasonable advisory guidelines range. 

-3-
Moreover, as the district court noted, there were other aggravating factors

warranting a sentence at the top of the advisory range. Jones picked up a gun

dropped by a shooting victim and walked away, while others rushed to assist the

fatally wounded victim. By leaving with the gun, Jones undoubtedly interfered with

the investigation that would follow. For example, the video suggested that the victim

was the aggressor in the shooting, so removing his weapon from the scene could

result in the shooter being wrongly charged with first degree murder. Jones’s

criminal history is another serious aggravating factor -- prior convictions for

second-degree robbery, assault, and felon in possession of a firearm; serious

misconduct while on prior supervision; and nine pending felony charges. 

District courts have “wide latitude” in weighing the relevant § 3553 factors. 

United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015). This is not the rare

case where a presumptively reasonable guidelines range sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-4-