U.S. v. Jones, 95-4035
| Decision Date | 26 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-4035,95-4035 |
| Citation | 87 F.3d 247 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Andre Dion JONES, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Andrea K. George, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
Margaret H. Chutich, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Andre Dion Jones, Jr., challenges the 151-month sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Jones contends the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal history and erroneously classified him as a career offender. We affirm.
Jones first argues the district court erred in assessing three criminal history points for each of two state felony convictions. Jones was arrested after committing the first offense, but before committing the second offense. Although Jones received two separate sentences of imprisonment--each greater than one year--execution of both sentences was suspended in favor of probation. Jones's probation on both sentences was later revoked, and he was ordered to serve the original terms of imprisonment concurrently.
Jones argues the offenses were "related" under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) and comment. (n.3), because the original terms of imprisonment were executed into a single term of imprisonment following his probation revocation. Thus, Jones argues, he should have been assessed three points for only one of the state convictions and only one point for the "related" conviction, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(f).
We review de novo the district court's construction and interpretation of Chapter Four of the Guidelines, and we review for clear error the district court's application of Chapter Four to the facts. See United States v. Allen, 64 F.3d 411, 413 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We agree with the district court that Jones's two unrelated convictions did not become related by virtue of the probation revocation and concurrent sentencing, and thus we conclude the district court properly assessed three points for each conviction. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(a) (), 4A1.2(a)(1), (b)(1) (defining "prior sentence" and "sentence of imprisonment"), 4A1.2(a)(2) & comment. (n.3) (prior sentences not related if for offenses separated by an intervening arrest); United States v. Aguilera, 48 F.3d 327, 330 (8th Cir.) (only where defendant arrested once...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Tisdale, 99-3379
...The fact that the state court imposed the sentences to run concurrently does not detract from this position. See United States v. Jones, 87 F.3d 247, 248 (8th Cir. 1996)("agree[ing] with the district court that Jones's two unrelated convictions did not become related by virtue of the probat......
-
United States v. Burke, Criminal No. 5:17-CR-50014-TLB-MEF-1
...convictions is revoked and the defendant is ordered to serve original terms of imprisonment concurrently. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 87 F.3d 247, 248 (8th Cir. 1996). U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(1) provides, "[i]n the case of a prior revocation of probation, parole, supervised release, spec......
-
U.S. v. Snoddy
...of the Guidelines de novo, and the factual findings supporting its conclusions for clear error."); United States v. Jones, 87 F.3d 247, 248 (8th Cir.) (per curiam ) (appellate review of the district court's construction and interpretation of Chapter Four of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is......
-
U.S. v. Borer
...guidelines, and we review for clear error the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. United States v. Jones, 87 F.3d 247, 248 (8th Cir.1996). Under USSG § 4A1.2(c)(1), an offense that is "similar to" disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace would not be counted in Bo......