United States v. Mark Jones, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12377

Mark Anthony Jones, a former Little Rock police officer, pled guilty to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute ~1,000 pounds of marijuana.
Jones agreed to provide police-escort/protection for a large marijuana shipment and enlisted his brother (also an LRPD officer); payment was $10,000.
Arrest followed shortly after Jones provided the escort; Jones admitted guilt and was sentenced.
The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 97–121 months and imposed a within-range sentence of 104 months after considering mitigating evidence.
Jones appealed, arguing procedural error (insufficient consideration/explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)) and substantive unreasonableness; appeal reviewed for plain error because he did not object at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court committed procedural error by failing to consider § 3553(a) and adequately explain sentence	Jones: court failed to sufficiently consider § 3553(a) factors and did not adequately explain the sentence	Government: district court considered relevant factors and provided adequate explanation; appellate review is for plain error	No procedural error; court referenced Jones's character, breach of trust, deterrence, and comparable sentences and thus adequately considered and explained sentence
Whether the within-Guidelines 104-month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Jones: sentence is substantively unreasonable given his lack of criminal history and service as a police officer	Government: within-range sentence is presumptively reasonable; district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors	Sentence not substantively unreasonable; Jones failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness for a within-range sentence

United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981 (plain-error review when defendant preserves no objection)
United States v. Wood, 587 F.3d 882 (procedural error includes failing to consider § 3553(a) or explain sentence)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (applying the Guidelines may not require lengthy explanation)
United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942 (referencing some § 3553(a) considerations suffices to show awareness of statute)
United States v. Huston, 744 F.3d 589 (within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (district court has wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Richardson, 581 F.3d 824 (discusses appeal-waiver enforcement; cited regarding waiver issue)