Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Paul JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-24
Citations: 312 F. App'x 927
Docket Number: No. 08-10164
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Paul JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, BRUNETTI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 927–928

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Paul JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10164.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 2009.
Filed Feb. 24, 2009.
William Lee Shipley, Jr., Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harlan Y. Kimura, Esquire, Honolulu, HI, for Defendanb-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, BRUNETTI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We affirm the district court's exercise of its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence of ninety-six months. The defendant's extensive and escalating criminal history, as well as the particular aspects of the crime at issue in this case, supports the district court's conclusion that a sentence greater than that recommended by the now advisory Sentencing Guidelines was required. The defendant's argument with respect to "double counting" relies on an outmoded and overruled understanding of federal sentencing law that is predicated on pre-Boolcer precedents that do not apply to the instant case. Under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the sentence was reasonable and devoid of procedural error. Accordingly, the sentence is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.