United States v. Michael Jones

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 2, 2024
• Docket: 22-6172
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6172 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6172

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL EDWARD JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:96-cr-00123-GCM-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 2, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6172 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edward Jones appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a

sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,

132 Stat. 5194 (“FSA”). In 1997, Jones was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute and distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

846 (Count 1), possession of a firearm during the course of a drug trafficking offense and

aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1), 2 (Count 2),

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting such conduct, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 3), and possession of a firearm by

a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924 (Count 7). Jones received a life sentence

for Count 1 and lesser sentences for Counts 3 and 7, to run concurrently. Jones also

received a 60-month mandatory sentence for Count 2 to run consecutively to the other

sentences. His convictions and sentence were affirmed. See United States v. Mitchell,

No. 97-4451, 1997 WL 753312 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 1997) (unpublished).

In January 2020, Jones moved for a sentence reduction, urging the district court to

reconsider the murder cross-reference applied toward his Sentencing Guidelines range

because he was never charged with murder. And he asserted that he was entitled to a

sentence reduction because he was convicted of a covered offense. Jones supplemented

his motion requesting a sentence of time-served, noting that the Sentencing Guidelines

were now advisory, and contending that he must be sentenced based on the drug amounts

as described in the indictment.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6172 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

The district court concluded that Jones was eligible for a sentence reduction and

resentenced Jones to a total of 660 month’s imprisonment. The court supported the reduced

sentence with references to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. “Under § 404(b)

of the First Step Act, sentencing courts may impose a reduced sentence as if section[s] 2

and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was

committed.” United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 408-09 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the defendant is eligible for relief because he

was convicted of a covered offense, the district court must analyze the § 3553(a) factors to

determine whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the defendant’s sentence. But the

court is not required to reduce a sentence. First Step Act § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (stating

that FSA does not “require a court to reduce [an eligible defendant’s] sentence”). We

review a court’s decision to grant or deny a sentence reduction under the FSA for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 819 (4th Cir. 2023).

After reviewing the district court’s resentencing, we conclude that the court did not

abuse its discretion in reducing Jones’ sentence with reference to the appropriate § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED