United States v. Joseph Jones
408 U.S. App. D.C. 425
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Jones, Thurston, and Ball were convicted of crack distribution but acquitted of conspiracy.
- District court found a conspiracy in Congress Park Crew and sentenced based largely on that finding.
- Jones received 180 months; Thurston 194 months; Ball 225 months, all below/within calculated ranges.
- Delays occurred before Thurston and Ball sentencing due to a co-defendant’s post-trial motion, resolved 2010.
- Appellants challenged procedural and substantive reasonableness, acquitted-conduct basis, and speedy-sentencing issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conspiracy finding was clearly erroneous | Jones argues no single conspiracy existed. | Court properly credited corroborated cooperator testimony and found a single conspiracy. | Not clearly erroneous; single conspiracy affirmed. |
| Whether relevant conduct was properly attributed to the defendants | Conduct tied to conspiracy should be included in Guidelines calculations. | Findings of common scheme were proper and corroborated. | Properly included as relevant conduct. |
| Whether sentencing based on acquitted conduct violated the Sixth Amendment | Using acquitted conduct to raise sentences violates jury-trial rights. | Settles/Dorcely permit sentencing on acquitted conduct by a preponderance and within statutory maximum. | No Sixth Amendment violation; settled doctrine applied. |
| Whether delays in sentencing violated speedy-sentencing rights and required remedy | Delays violated Sixth Amendment speedy sentencing. | Remedies (12–15 month reductions) were adequate. | Remedies adequate; no further relief needed. |
| Whether the overall sentences were procedurally and substantively reasonable | Below-Guidelines sentences were unreasonable given conduct. | Within-range sentences receive presumption of reasonableness; below-range would be hard to unreasonable. | affirmed; sentences deemed reasonable within the Guidelines framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (acquitted conduct may be considered so long as within statutory maximum)
- Gas v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (S. Ct. 1997) (Sixth Amendment sentencing limits with respect to acquitted conduct)
- United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (court may base sentence on acquitted conduct by preponderance of the evidence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (post-Booker reasonableness review framework for sentencing)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (S. Ct. 2005) (Midnight reforms—federal sentencing within statutory ranges)
- United States v. Bras, 483 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (judicial fact-finding does not violate the Sixth Amendment)
- United States v. Graham, 83 F.3d 1466 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (essential element of conspiracy; multiple corroborating witnesses)
- United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (factors for determining single conspiracy)