United States v. Jones
16-1337
10th Cir.Feb 8, 2017Background
- Mark Jones pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received an 18-month sentence.
- The district court ordered the 18-month term to run consecutively to an existing 126-month sentence for aggravated identity theft and mail fraud.
- Jones appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in ordering the sentence consecutive rather than concurrent.
- The district court explained it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors (including deterrence, community safety, and Jones’s personal characteristics) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d).
- The court found the firearm possession was unrelated to the offenses underlying the 126-month sentence, reducing the deterrent effect if run concurrently.
- The district court also considered Jones’s age, health, and the length of the undischarged sentence as mitigating factors and imposed a below-guidelines 18-month term, but still consecutive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 18-month sentence consecutively | Jones: court overemphasized gun possession, failed to adequately weigh his health, the victimless nature of the offense, and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) | Government: court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and the policy statement and reasonably chose consecutive service because the possession was unrelated to the earlier offense | Court: No abuse of discretion; consecutive 18-month sentence is reasonable |
| Whether the court improperly weighed § 3553(a) factors | Jones: court’s weighing was unreasonable and resulted in an arbitrary sentence | Government: court lawfully balanced permissible § 3553(a) factors under deferential review | Court: Sentence not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable |
| Whether the court failed to give appropriate weight to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) policy considerations | Jones: court gave minimal weight to the undischarged term’s length and mitigating circumstances | Government: court considered the policy statement and reached a different but permissible balance | Court: No indication the court unreasonably weighed the policy statement |
| Whether the mitigating factors (health, age, assurance of no repeat) required concurrent sentencing | Jones: these factors warranted concurrency or partial concurrency | Government: mitigating factors were considered but did not override other § 3553(a) concerns | Court: Mitigating factors were considered; district court reasonably imposed consecutive sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lente, 759 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir.) (describing review of substantive reasonableness for sentencing)
- United States v. Sayad, 589 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir.) (quoting standard for assessing reasonableness under § 3553(a))
- United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir.) (stating sentence will be deemed unreasonable only if arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable)