United States v. Jones, 17-1710
Decision Date | 21 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 17-1710,17-1710 |
Citation | 882 F.3d 1169 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Corey Anthony JONES, Defendant–Appellant |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Ashley Corkery, Richard D. Westphal, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Corey Anthony Jones, pro se.
Heather Quick, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Corey Anthony Jones pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). At sentencing, he moved for a downward departure, arguing his criminal-history score overstated the severity of his criminal history. In addition, he argued that two prior felony convictions he received in the state of Illinois under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/401, should not trigger the career-offender provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) defines "controlled substance offense" as an offense involving controlled substances or "counterfeit" controlled substances, whereas 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/401 also applies to control substance "analogs." The district court1 applied the career-offender guideline and imposed a 188–month, bottom-of-the-range sentence. We affirm.
The district court did not expressly address Jones's request for a downward departure. As such, Jones argues we must reverse his sentence based on procedural error. See United States v. Knight, 58 F.3d 393, 398 (8th Cir. 1995) (). We reject his argument. Jones clearly and repeatedly asserted his request for a downward departure in his objection to the presentencing report, in his sentencing memorandum, and at his sentencing hearing. The experienced district court judge expressly addressed the underlying basis for Jones's request—an allegedly overstated criminal history—in applying the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It is clear beyond debate that the district court was cognizant of Jones's departure request and the authority to depart. See United States v. Sypolt, 346 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2003) (). In this context, we will not disturb the sentence based on the mere absence of a separate statement denying the requested departure.
Regarding the career-offender guideline, Jones argues the underlying Illinois statute defines an offense that is overbroad in the sense that it criminalizes conduct that qualifies as a controlled-substance offense and conduct that does not. See Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2292, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013) (discussing overbreadth). Jones also argues the Illinois statute lists alternative means, rather than elements, such that the modified categorical approach does not apply. See Mathis v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 2253, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016) ( ). We do not reach the question of whether the Illinois sta...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dixon v. Watson, Case No. 17-cv-1339-SLD
...a controlled substance in schedule I."); 21 U.S.C. § 802(32) (defining controlled substance analogues); see also, United States v. Jones, 882 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir. 2018) (rejecting argument that inclusion of analogs in 720 ILCS 570/401 made it overbroad for purposes of the career offend......
-
Jackson v. United States
...570/407(b)(1). This gave him two prior controlled-substance felony convictions. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) ; see also United States v. Jones , 882 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir. 2018) (finding that prior Illinois convictions under 720 Ill. Comp. State 570/401 qualify as controlled substance offense......
-
United States v. Sims
...base offense level, see United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also United States v. Jones, 882 F.3d 1169 (8th Cir. 2018). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfriv......
-
United States v. Murray
...for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule 1.'" United States v. Jones, 882 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)). The Eight Circuit therefore rejected the argument that the Illinois statutory offense ......