Court Opinion

ID: 9391094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:29.741811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.268008
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4053      Doc: 35         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4053

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DEMARIO MARTEZ JONES,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00449-WO-1)

        Submitted: February 9, 2023                                       Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Jacob D. Pryor,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4053         Doc: 35      Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Demario Martez Jones was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm after being

        convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C.

        § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Jones to 96 months of imprisonment, an upward

        variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, which recommended a sentence

        between 70 and 87 months based on a total offense level of 20 and a criminal history

        category of VI. Jones challenges one of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, which

        permitted the government to introduce evidence that Jones had been convicted of the same

        crime in 2015 along with certain limited facts leading to that conviction. He also argues

        that the 96-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

               We review the evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion and do not disturb even

        an erroneous ruling if it was harmless. United States v. Brizuela, 962 F.3d 784, 791 (4th

        Cir. 2020). Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court committed no

        reversible error in admitting the challenged evidence.

               We review a sentencing decision for substantive reasonableness under a deferential

        abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 56 (2007). Having

        reviewed the record, we perceive no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s judgment.

               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

                                                     2