Court Opinion

ID: 9382166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:37.144281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.375665
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4263      Doc: 40         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4263

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANDREW PATRICK JONES,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00091-MR-WCM-1)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Richard L. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR.,
        Monroe, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4263      Doc: 40          Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Andrew Patrick Jones pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2); possession

        with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and

        possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Jones to concurrent terms of 60 months on the

        first two counts and a consecutive 60-month term on the third count, for a total sentence of

        120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

        California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

        but questioning whether the sentencing enhancement authorized by U.S. Sentencing

        Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) (2018) inequitably permits double counting on

        convictions for possession of a stolen firearm. The Government has declined to file a

        response brief. In his pro se supplemental brief, Jones raises as issues claims of ineffective

        assistance of counsel and police misconduct during his arrest.

               Our review of the plea colloquy confirms that the magistrate judge complied with

        Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and properly concluded that Jones’ plea was knowing, voluntary, and

        supported by a sufficient factual basis. As for Jones’ sentence, we “review a sentence for

        reasonableness ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard[]’ . . . whether the

        sentence is ‘inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United

        States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552

        U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review encompasses the sentence’s procedural and substantive

        reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Jones’

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4263         Doc: 40       Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable and that his claim of double

        counting is unfounded.

               We typically will not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel made on

        direct appeal, United States v. Maynes, 880 F.3d 110, 113 n.1 (4th Cir. 2018), “[u]nless an

        attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,” United States v.

        Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). We find that no ineffective assistance of counsel

        conclusively appears in the record. Likewise, we conclude that Jones’ claims of police

        misconduct are not of the sort that would invalidate Jones’ guilty plea. See United States

        v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 469-70 (4th Cir. 2013) (concluding that plea was involuntary when

        “law enforcement officer intentionally l[ied] in a[n] affidavit that formed the sole basis for

        searching the defendant’s home” and defendant discovered lie after plea).

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds 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.

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      3