CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
T’SHAUN OMAR JONES,
Defendant-Appellant. |
Nos. 22-1280/1281 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 19-cr-202362 (22-1281)—George Caram Steeh, III, District Judge;
No. 21-cr-20435 (22-1280)—Gershwin A. Drain, District Judge.
Argued: April 27, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 29, 2023
Before: COOK, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Officers arrested T’Shaun Jones, who had been on
supervised release, after he fired shots outside his house and fled inside. Under a plea
agreement, the district court imposed the agreed-upon ten-year sentence, which was above the
Guidelines range. Separately, Jones faced resentencing on his supervised release because the
firearm offense violated his supervised-release conditions. A different district court imposed a
24-month sentence for this violation—half to run concurrently with his firearm conviction and
half to run consecutively.
Jones challenges both the ten-year firearm sentence and the 24-month supervised-release
sentence. Because the district courts properly calculated Jones’s Guidelines range for the firearm
offense and imposed a reasonable sentence for the supervised-release violation, we AFFIRM. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SYLVIA HOFSTETTER (20-6245); HOLLI WOMACK
(20-6426); CYNTHIA CLEMONS (20-6427);
COURTNEY NEWMAN (20-6428),
Defendants-Appellants. |
Nos. 20-6245/6426/6427/6428 |
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:15-cr-00027—Thomas A. Varlan, District Judge.
Argued: May 3, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 29, 2023
Before: SILER, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SILER, Circuit Judge. This matter comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court
of the United States. All four Defendants were found guilty of maintaining a drug-involved
premises. Sylvia Hofstetter was also found guilty of conspiring to distribute controlled
substances, distributing controlled substances, and money laundering.
After we affirmed the convictions, the Supreme Court decided Ruan v. United States,
142 S. Ct. 2370, 2375 (2022), clarifying the applicable mens rea for an unlawful distribution
charge, and remanded the case. Defendants now argue that the district court erred regarding the
jury instructions for the maintaining-a-drug-involved-premises charge, and Hofstetter further
argues the district court erred as to the instructions for her distribution-of-a-controlled-substance
and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense-controlled-substances charges.
Defendants’ arguments are unavailing. The district court’s instructions were not plainly
erroneous regarding the maintaining-a-drug-involved-premises and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense-controlled-substances charges. Moreover, Hofstetter’s argument regarding the
instruction for the distribution-of-a-controlled-substance charge is foreclosed by United States v.
Anderson, 67 F.4th 755 (6th Cir. 2023) (per curiam). We affirm. |
|