United States v. Eddie L. Jones

910 F.2d 760, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15476, 1990 WL 118323
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 5, 1990
Docket89-4065
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 910 F.2d 760 (United States v. Eddie L. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Eddie L. Jones, 910 F.2d 760, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15476, 1990 WL 118323 (11th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The only issue presented on this appeal is whether a prior state court case wherein the defendant enters a nolo plea and adjudication is withheld can be used as a “conviction” to make the defendant eligible for career offender status under Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The appellant, Eddie L. Jones, argues that one of his prior state offenses could not be used as a predicate offense under United States Sentencing Guidelines Section 4B1.1 because adjudication was withheld, he was placed on probation in that case, and the district court therefore incorrectly sentenced him as a career offender. While this Court has not previously addressed the specific sentence guideline issue presented in this case, we have on several previous occasions addressed a similar issue in a non-guidelines context. This Court has previously held that a state case in which adjudication was withheld after a nolo plea qualified as a “conviction” for purposes of a federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C.A. § 922 et seq. for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See, e.g., United States v. Bruscantini, 761 F.2d 640, 641 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Garcia, 727 F.2d 1028, 1029 (11th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Grinkiewicz, 873 F.2d 253, 255 (11th Cir.1989) (adjudication withheld after guilty plea). The reasoning applied in these cases is applicable in this case.

Therefore, we hold that Jones’s prior offense was a conviction for the purposes of Section 4B1.1 and AFFIRM his sentence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Robert William Green
842 F.3d 1299 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Norman
645 F. App'x 848 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
State of Iowa v. Nathan Daniel Olsen
848 N.W.2d 363 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2014)
United States v. Omari Elliot
732 F.3d 1307 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Jeffrey J. Grimes
702 F.3d 460 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Barner
572 F.3d 1239 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Maupin
520 F.3d 1304 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Joshua
305 F.3d 352 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
Franklin E. Hagins v. United States
267 F.3d 1202 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Armando Lazaro Fernandez
234 F.3d 1345 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Willis
106 F.3d 966 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Rodger Seratt
Eighth Circuit, 1996
United States v. Gonzalo De Jesus Tamayo
80 F.3d 1514 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Cuevas
75 F.3d 778 (First Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
910 F.2d 760, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15476, 1990 WL 118323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eddie-l-jones-ca11-1990.