United States v. Gerald Jones

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3284

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gerald A. Jones

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: July 19, 2019

Filed: July 24, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald A. Jones directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin, pursuant to a written plea

1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

agreement. Counsel seeks permission to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Jones’s due process rights were violated at sentencing.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the due process argument fails on the merits. Specifically, the district court properly relied on testimony and evidence presented at sentencing in resolving disputed portions of the PSR. See United States v. Kozohorsky, 708 F.3d 1028, 1033 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d 1165, 1170-71 (8th Cir. 2009).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm.

______________________________