UNITED STATES v. JONES (2019)

[Unpublished]

Brian Jones appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense, and the district court ¹ sentenced him to a prison term within the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel presents as possible issues whether the district court erred in determining the drug quantity attributable to Jones, applying two Guidelines enhancements, and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining the drug quantity attributable to Jones. See United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848, 852 (8th Cir. 2006). We also conclude that the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in applying a role enhancement. The undisputed facts in the presentence report established that more than ten people were involved in the drug conspiracy. Jones exercised decision-making authority, participated in organizing the drug conspiracy, and exercised control over a co-conspirator’s activities. See United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Menteer, 408 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4).

On the enhancement for involving a vulnerable individual in the offense, we conclude that any error was harmless because the Guidelines range was determined by the statutory maximum, whether or not the enhancement applied. See United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. McCarns, 900 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2018). We further conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. The court imposed the statutory-maximum prison term, which was within the calculated Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Shafer, 438 F.3d 1225, 1227 (8th Cir. 2006).

Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.