Court Opinion

ID: 9379049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 16:00:31.296305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:36.852277
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-1654
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                                        Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                                Phillip Neal Jones, Jr.

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                           for the District of Minnesota
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: January 9, 2023
                               Filed: March 14, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Phillip Jones, Jr., appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.
See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jones left a loaded gun in his apartment, and children
who were left alone there discovered it. One of them accidentally fired the gun,
killing a six-year-old boy. Jones pleaded guilty.
       Jones’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was 30 to 37 months’
imprisonment. Based on the fact that his crime involved the death of a young child,
his extensive criminal history, and his three prior felon-in-possession convictions,
the district court 1 varied upward and sentenced him to 57 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Jones argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

      This is not “the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence . . . as
substantively unreasonable.” See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court has wide latitude to weigh the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Stephen, 984 F.3d 625, 633 (8th Cir. 2021). We
previously affirmed a much larger upward variance when a defendant’s dangerous
conduct endangered children. United States v. Godfrey, 863 F.3d 1088, 1092-94
(8th Cir. 2017). And we have affirmed substantial upward variances when a
defendant repeated his prior criminal conduct. See, e.g., United States v. David, 682
F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (8th Cir. 2012). Although Jones disagrees with how the district
court weighed the factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing
more heavily aggravating factors under § 3553(a) to vary upward. See Feemster,
572 F.3d at 461. We therefore affirm Jones’s sentence.
                       ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

                                         -2-