Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Darryl JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-11
Citations: 82 F. App'x 819
Docket Number: No. 03-4431
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Darryl JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 819–820

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Darryl JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-4431.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 24, 2003.
Decided Dec. 11, 2003.
Joseph A. Sanzone, Sanzone & Baker, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant.
John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
UNPUBLISHED
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Michael Darryl Jones pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (2000). The district court sentenced Jones to twelve months and one day in prison. Jones appealed, contending that the district court should have directed that his sentence be served at a facility where he could participate in a work release program. Finding no merit to his claim, we affirm.
The power to designate an inmate's place of incarceration rests solely with the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (2000). Jones contends, however, that the district court had the authority to order that he serve his sentence through work release. Because Jones' sentence falls within Zone D of the Sentencing Table, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 5, pt. A (2002), incarceration was mandatory and alternative punishment, such as work release, was not available. USSG § 5B1.1 comment, (n.2), 5Cl.(f) & comment. n.(8). Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked the au thority to order that Jones serve his sentence through work release.
For these reasons, we affirm Jones' sentence. 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