11th Cir.

United States v. Jones

July 23, 2026 ·4:25-cr-00001-AW-MAF-1 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a bank fraud defendant's sentence after the district court stated it would have imposed the same term regardless of any guideline calculation errors. The court held that any procedural error regarding the loss amount or acceptance of responsibility reduction was harmless because the sentence remained substantively reasonable.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:04

Background

Jerelle Jones pleaded guilty to eight counts including bank fraud, conspiracy, aggravated identity theft, and forgery arising from a customer cash-out scheme. The district court calculated a total offense level of twenty-eight and sentenced Jones to one hundred fourteen months of imprisonment, which was below the statutory maximum.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the harmless error doctrine, noting that when a district court states it would impose the same sentence regardless of a guideline error, the appellate court may affirm without addressing the procedural issue. The court found the one hundred fourteen month sentence reasonable under the factors set forth in Section thirty-five fifty-three of Title eighteen of the United States Code.

this is the same sentence [it] would have imposed if the guidelines had been different

USCA11 Case: 25-13480 Document: 28-1 Page: 3

What it means going forward

Defendants challenging sentencing calculations must demonstrate that any error actually impacted the final sentence to warrant a remand, even if the district court made a procedural mistake.