Court Opinion

ID: 9925419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 19:00:52.849218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:34.302932
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 19 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-2441
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:19-cr-00262-JCC-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT E. JONES, Jr.,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                  John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Robert E. Jones, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 3-month term of imprisonment and 21-month term of supervised

release imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Jones contends that the district court erred by failing to (1) calculate the

Guidelines range on the record; (2) consider his arguments or the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors; and (3) explain the sentence adequately. We review

for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th

Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that probation

calculated the undisputed 7-13 month Guidelines range and recommended a 3-

month sentence and 21-month term of supervision, both to sanction Jones for his

breach of the court’s trust and to permit him another opportunity to address his

substance use issues. The record further reflects that, after reviewing probation’s

memorandum and hearing argument from Jones and the government, the court

adopted probation’s recommendation and imposed the significantly below-

Guidelines sentence. On this record, and in light of the district court’s familiarity

with Jones’s history during his previous term of supervision, Jones has not shown a

reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence in the

absence of the alleged errors. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762

(9th Cir. 2008).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    23-2441