Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward Clinton Jones III appealed his 151-month sentence for solicitation of murder for hire and use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors, explained its reasoning, and the sentence was procedurally reasonable. 3) The appeals court also found that the district court was not required to order a mental competency hearing for Jones sua sponte and did not improperly delegate authority to the probation officer.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    24 views6 pages
    1) Edward Clinton Jones III appealed his 151-month sentence for solicitation of murder for hire and use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors, explained its reasoning, and the sentence was procedurally reasonable. 3) The appeals court also found that the district court was not required to order a mental competency hearing for Jones sua sponte and did not improperly delegate authority to the probation officer.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-09-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4901

    Original Title

    United States v. Edward Jones, III, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Edward Clinton Jones III appealed his 151-month sentence for solicitation of murder for hire and use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors, explained its reasoning, and the sentence was procedurally reasonable. 3) The appeals court also found that the district court was not required to order a mental competency hearing for Jones sua sponte and did not improperly delegate authority to the probation officer.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    24 views6 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward Clinton Jones III appealed his 151-month sentence for solicitation of murder for hire and use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors, explained its reasoning, and the sentence was procedurally reasonable. 3) The appeals court also found that the district court was not required to order a mental competency hearing for Jones sua sponte and did not improperly delegate authority to the probation officer.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 6

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4901

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EDWARD CLINTON JONES, III,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Richard M. Gergel, District
    Judge. (2:14-cr-00342-RMG-1)

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2015

    Decided:

    September 3, 2015

    Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kimberly H. Albro, Research & Writing Specialist, FEDERAL PUBLIC


    DEFENDERS OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Nathan S. Williams,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward Clinton Jones, III, appeals the 151-month sentence
    imposed

    by

    the

    district

    court

    following

    his

    guilty

    plea

    to

    solicitation of murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C.


    373, 1958 (2012), and use of interstate commerce facilities in
    the commission of murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    1958.

    On

    appeal,

    procedurally

    Jones

    unreasonable,

    contends
    that

    the

    that

    his

    district

    sentence

    court

    erred

    is
    in

    failing to sua sponte order a mental competency hearing, and


    that

    the

    court

    improperly

    delegated

    judicial

    authority

    imposing a special condition of supervised release.

    in

    Finding no

    error, we affirm.
    Jones

    first

    contends

    that

    his

    sentence

    is

    procedurally

    unreasonable because the district court abused its discretion


    during sentencing by failing to explain its reasons for denying
    his motion for a downward variance.
    must

    ensure

    significant

    that

    the

    procedural

    district
    error,

    In reviewing a sentence, we
    court

    such

    as

    did

    not

    failing

    commit
    to

    any

    properly

    calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to


    consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to
    adequately explain the sentence.
    U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

    Gall v. United States, 552

    In explaining its sentence, the district

    court is not required to robotically tick through 3553(a)s


    every subsection.

    United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345


    2

    (4th Cir. 2006).

    However, the court must place on the record

    an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of


    the case before it.

    This individualized assessment need not be

    elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored


    to

    the

    particular

    case

    at

    hand

    meaningful appellate review.

    and

    adequate

    to

    permit

    United States v. Carter, 564

    F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50)
    (internal citation and footnote omitted)).
    We

    conclude

    discretion

    in

    that

    the

    imposing

    district

    the

    court

    151-month

    did

    not

    abuse

    sentence.

    The

    its

    court

    thoroughly considered the 3553(a) factors in finding that a


    within-Guidelines
    adequate

    sentence

    explanation

    those factors.

    for

    was

    the

    appropriate

    sentence

    and

    imposed

    provided

    upon

    an

    balancing

    Moreover, the record reflects that the court

    adequately considered Jones arguments for a downward variance


    but found those mitigating factors insufficient to warrant a
    below-Guidelines sentence.
    Jones

    next

    contends

    that

    the

    district

    court

    abused

    its

    discretion in failing to sua sponte order a mental competency


    hearing.
    hearing

    The district court must sua sponte order a competency


    if

    there

    is

    reasonable

    cause

    to

    believe

    that

    the

    defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or


    defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he
    is

    unable

    to

    understand

    the

    nature
    3

    and

    consequences

    of

    the

    proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.


    18

    U.S.C.

    4241(a)

    established

    (2012).

    through

    Reasonable

    evidence

    of

    cause

    irrational

    may

    behavior,

    be
    the

    defendants demeanor at trial, and medical opinions concerning


    the defendants competence.

    United States v. Bernard, 708 F.3d

    583, 592-93 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    The mere presence of mental illness is not, however, equated
    with

    incompetence.

    omitted).

    Id.

    Competency

    at

    turns

    593
    on

    (internal

    whether

    quotation

    the

    marks

    defendant

    has

    sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a


    reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has
    a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
    against him.

    Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

    Here, the district court did not err in failing to sua


    sponte order a competency hearing.

    See United States v. Dreyer,

    705 F.3d 951, 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that a district
    courts

    failure

    to

    conduct

    competency

    hearing

    on

    its

    own

    motion will always be subject to plain error review); see also


    Henderson

    v.

    (providing
    reflects

    United

    States,

    standard
    no

    indication

    inappropriately

    at

    district

    was

    court

    medications,

    for

    and

    any

    the

    133

    plain

    S.

    error

    that

    Jones

    point

    during

    aware
    court

    Ct.

    of

    1126-27

    (2013)

    The

    record

    review).
    acted
    the

    Jones

    adequately
    4

    1121,

    irrationally

    proceedings.

    mental

    The

    conditions

    inquired

    into

    or

    and

    Jones

    understanding

    of

    exists

    question

    is

    the

    district court.

    proceedings.
    left

    to

    Whether

    the

    sound

    reasonable

    discretion

    cause

    of

    the

    Bernard, 708 F.3d at 592 (internal quotation

    marks omitted).

    The district court did not abuse its discretion

    in this case.
    Finally, Jones contends that the district court violated
    Article

    III

    of

    the

    Constitution

    by

    delegating

    its

    judicial

    authority to the probation officer to determine whether mental


    health treatment would be a condition of supervised release.
    probation

    officer

    has

    the

    authority

    to

    manage

    aspects

    A
    of

    sentences and to supervise . . . persons on supervised release


    with respect to all conditions imposed by the court.
    States v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806, 808 (4th Cir. 1995).

    United
    A court

    may not, however, delegate to a probation officer a judicial


    function,

    as

    Constitution.
    improperly

    such

    Id.

    delegation
    at

    delegated

    violates

    808-09.

    the

    To

    judicial

    Article

    determine

    authority

    of

    III
    if

    of
    a

    the

    court

    sentencing,

    [courts] have drawn a distinction between the delegation to a


    probation officer of a ministerial act or support service and
    the ultimate responsibility of imposing the sentence.
    States

    v.

    Nash,

    438

    F.3d

    1302,

    (internal quotation marks omitted).

    1304-05

    (11th

    Cir.

    United
    2006)

    Where the court makes the

    determination of whether a defendant must abide by a condition,


    it

    is

    permissible

    to

    delegate
    5

    to

    the

    probation

    officer

    the

    details of where and when the condition will be satisfied.

    Id.

    (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).


    We conclude that the district court did not err in imposing
    on Jones the special condition of supervised release requiring
    mental health treatment.
    Jones

    undergo

    mental

    The court unequivocally ordered that

    health

    treatment

    as

    condition

    of

    his

    supervised release and tasked the officer with the authority to


    determine

    the

    type

    of

    treatment

    necessary

    condition, a purely ministerial function.

    to

    fulfill

    the

    Thus, the court did

    not violate Article III.


    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    dispense

    with

    conclusions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy