United States v. Anthony Jones, Jr., 71 F.4th 1083

In May 2019 Anthony Jones shot and killed Jessica Vinson, abandoned her body, and later attempted to conceal evidence; he also sent threatening electronic messages to witnesses while incarcerated.
A federal indictment charged Jones with carjacking resulting in death (Count 1), discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) (Count 2), two counts of witness tampering (Counts 5–6), and two other counts that were later dropped.
On the eve of trial Jones pleaded guilty to four counts; the parties jointly recommended a 360‑month sentence, but the PSR and district court treated Count 2 as requiring a consecutive sentence under § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).
The district court overruled Jones’s objection, declined the joint 360‑month recommendation, and imposed a within‑guidelines 540‑month sentence (360 on Count 1; 120 on Count 2 consecutive; 240 on Counts 5–6 with partial concurrency).
Jones appealed, challenging (1) the district court’s view that § 924(j) required a mandatory consecutive sentence and (2) the substantive reasonableness of the 540‑month sentence.
After briefing the Supreme Court decided Lora v. United States, holding § 924(j) is a separate offense that does not mandatorily require consecutive sentencing, but confirming district courts retain discretion to impose consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 924(j) requires a mandatory consecutive sentence under § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)	Government: § 924(j) must be sentenced consecutively	Jones: § 924(j) is a separate offense and therefore does not trigger the § 924(c) consecutive‑sentence mandate	Court: § 924(j) is a separate offense (Lora). Any procedural error was harmless because the district court would have exercised its discretion to impose consecutive sentences on these facts.
Whether the 540‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Government: within‑guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable given murder, tampering, criminal history, lack of remorse	Jones: court failed to give adequate weight to childhood, mental‑health history, and should have accepted the joint 360‑month recommendation	Court: affirmed sentence as substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion—court considered § 3553(a) factors and justifiably imposed incremental punishment.

Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. _ (2023) (§ 924(j) is a separate offense and does not mandatorily require consecutive sentences; district courts retain discretion)
Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (district courts have discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)
United States v. Julian, 633 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2011) (held § 924(j) requires consecutive sentencing — contrary circuit view)
United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019) (contrasting circuit authority on § 924(j) consecutive‑sentence issue)
United States v. Tabor, 531 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2008) (harmless‑error standard for procedural sentencing errors)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standards for reviewing substantive reasonableness of a sentence)
Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (preservation principles for appellate review of sentencing challenges)