Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Timothy JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-12
Citations: 219 F. App'x 952
Docket Number: No. 06-10725
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Timothy JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Timothy JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10725.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 12, 2007.
Elliot Blake Durham, Savannah, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Amy Lee Copeland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge.
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
A jury found appellant Bruce Timothy Jones ("Jones") guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jones then perfected this appeal.
Jones presents the following issues for appellate review:
1. Whether the district court erred in denying Jones's motion to suppress evidence on his claims that the warrant was issued after the search and lacked probable cause.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Jones's motion to suppress statements he made to police officers.
3. Whether the district court erred in refusing to compel disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant.
4. Whether the district court improperly sentenced Jones by
(a) using allegedly invalid prior convictions to calculate his base offense level and criminal history category,
(b) using facts not pled or proven to the jury to enhance his base offense level and calculate his criminal history category, in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and
(c) using his prior convictions to enhance his sentence, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
5. Whether the indictment should have been dismissed for pre-indictment delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
After reviewing the record and reading the parties' briefs, we conclude there is no merit to any of Jones's arguments. Accordingly, we afiHrm his conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.