United States of America v. Jermaine D. Jones

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2605
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jermaine D. Jones
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: September 19, 2025
Filed: October 8, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Jermaine Jones violated conditions of his supervised release, the district
court1 revoked his supervision and sentenced him to a total of five years’
imprisonment, with no supervision to follow. This five-year sentence included a one-
year consecutive sentence for Jones’s conviction for being a drug user in possession
1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). On appeal, Jones argues that the
district court plainly erred2 by imposing the one-year revocation sentence for his
drug-user-in-possession conviction because he had previously served the initial
statutory maximum sentence for that crime. Specifically, he contends that the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments prohibit a district court from imposing a supervised release
sentence above the statutory maximum for the underlying crime based on judge-
made factual findings.
Circuit precedent forecloses Jones’s argument. See, e.g., United States v.
Childs, 17 F.4th 790, 791–92 (8th Cir. 2021) (rejecting the defendant’s argument
“that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum because the number of years he
served was greater than the sum of the maximum term of imprisonment plus the
maximum term of supervised release”; concluding that “the law of the offense”
governs “[t]he maximum term of imprisonment”; and determining that “[s]upervised
release is distinct from the prison term, and the amount of time to be served is
determined separately”); United States v. Eagle Chasing, 965 F.3d 647, 651 (8th Cir.
2020) (“Until the Supreme Court invalidates [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(e)(3), we must
follow our precedent and hold that the revocation of Eagle Chasing’s release did not
violate his constitutional rights.”); United States v. Poe, 471 F. App’x 556, 556 (8th
Cir. 2012) (unpublished per curiam) (“[S]upervised release may be imposed in
addition to the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction . . . .”).
Jones acknowledges our circuit precedent but nonetheless argues that the
Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), casts
that precedent into doubt. We disagree. As the government correctly points out,
“Erlinger did not address supervised release or the statutory maximum sentence that
2 Jones concedes that plain-error review applies because he failed to object
before the district court. See Appellant’s Br. 7. “To obtain relief, [Jones] must show
an error that is plain, affects his substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Mull, No.
24-2822, 2025 WL 2364592, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025) (unpublished per
curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
can be imposed upon revocation. Instead, it ‘concerns the Armed Career Criminal
Act (ACCA) and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.’” Appellee’s Br. 14 (quoting
Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 825). Erlinger held that “the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
require a unanimous jury” to determine “beyond a reasonable doubt” whether “a
defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions” for purposes of
the ACCA’s “lengthy mandatory prison terms.” 602 U.S. at 825. Because Erlinger
does not address supervised release or the maximum sentence that a court can impose
upon revocation of supervised release, we follow our circuit precedent. See Eagle
Chasing, 965 F.3d at 651.
Accordingly, we hold that the district court committed no error, plain or
otherwise, in sentencing Jones to five years’ imprisonment. We affirm the district
court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --