United States v. Anthony Jones
Court
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 16, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 22-2064 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANTHONY JONES a/k/a EARS, Appellant _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00193-003) District Judge: Honorable Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro _______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 9, 2025 Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Filed: June 16, 2025) _______________ OPINION * _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Appellant Anthony Jones appeals his convictions for several counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy to do the same. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND Between 2012 and 2017, Anthony Jones joined his brother, Kristian Jones, and Dkyle Bridges to traffic several minors and adults in Delaware and Pennsylvania. As relevant to this case, Jones, Bridges, and Kristian Jones trafficked three victims, B.T., N.G., and L.C., beginning when they were minors. All three victims were recovered by undercover agents posing as customers, after which Jones, Bridges, and Kristian Jones were arrested. A grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a superseding indictment charging Jones with one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c) (Count One); one count of sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count Three); and three counts (one for each of B.T., N.G., and L.C.) of sex trafficking of a minor and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts Four, Five, and Six). 1 The three were jointly tried and the jury convicted Jones on Counts One, Four, 1 Count Two of the indictment charged Bridges with a separate count of sex trafficking with force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 2 Five, and Six, and acquitted him on Count Three. 2 Jones timely appealed. II. DISCUSSION 3 Jones challenges his convictions on several bases. We disagree with each. A. Grand Jury Testimony First, Jones contends on appeal that the Government knowingly presented false testimony to the grand jury. But Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) requires a defendant to raise any “error in the grand-jury proceeding or preliminary hearing” in a “pretrial motion if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits.” Thus, when a defendant fails to raise a challenge to the grand jury proceedings in a pretrial motion, we may review his claim only where he demonstrates “good cause” for the delay. 4 United States v. Sok, 115 F.4th 251, 259 (3d Cir. 2024). While “good cause” is “a flexible standard,” its flexibility is not limitless, and Jones does not satisfy it here. Id. at 263. He makes only conclusory arguments that his 2 The jury also convicted Bridges and Kristian Jones, whose convictions we later affirmed. See United States v. Bridges, No. 21-1679, 2022 WL 4244276 (3d Cir. Sep. 15, 2022). 3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 4 The Government urges that if we reach the merits of Jones’s unpreserved claims despite Rule 12’s timeliness requirements, “it is the defendant’s burden to establish plain error, as the claim was not presented to the district court.” Answering Br. 24. But we have explained that Rule 52(b)’s plain-error standard yields to Rule 12’s good-cause standard in this context because “[n]othing in the text of Rule 12 . . . supplants its good-cause standard of review in favor of Rule 52(b)’s plain-error standard.” United States v. Sok, 115 F.4th 251, 261 (3d Cir
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 16, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 22-2064
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTHONY JONES
a/k/a
EARS,
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00193-003)
District Judge: Honorable Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro
_______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 9, 2025
Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 16, 2025)
_______________
OPINION *
_______________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Anthony Jones appeals his convictions for several counts of sex
trafficking and conspiracy to do the same. We will affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Between 2012 and 2017, Anthony Jones joined his brother, Kristian Jones, and
Dkyle Bridges to traffic several minors and adults in Delaware and Pennsylvania. As
relevant to this case, Jones, Bridges, and Kristian Jones trafficked three victims, B.T.,
N.G., and L.C., beginning when they were minors. All three victims were recovered by
undercover agents posing as customers, after which Jones, Bridges, and Kristian Jones
were arrested.
A grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a superseding
indictment charging Jones with one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c) (Count One); one count of sex trafficking by force,
threats of force, fraud, or coercion and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count Three); and three counts (one for each of
B.T., N.G., and L.C.) of sex trafficking of a minor and aiding and abetting, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts Four, Five, and
Six). 1 The three were jointly tried and the jury convicted Jones on Counts One, Four,
1 Count Two of the indictment charged Bridges with a separate count of sex trafficking with force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 2 Five, and Six, and acquitted him on Count Three. 2 Jones timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION 3
Jones challenges his convictions on several bases. We disagree with each.
A. Grand Jury Testimony
First, Jones contends on appeal that the Government knowingly presented false
testimony to the grand jury. But Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) requires a
defendant to raise any “error in the grand-jury proceeding or preliminary hearing” in a
“pretrial motion if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion
can be determined without a trial on the merits.” Thus, when a defendant fails to raise a
challenge to the grand jury proceedings in a pretrial motion, we may review his claim
only where he demonstrates “good cause” for the delay. 4 United States v. Sok, 115 F.4th
251, 259 (3d Cir. 2024).
While “good cause” is “a flexible standard,” its flexibility is not limitless, and
Jones does not satisfy it here. Id. at 263. He makes only conclusory arguments that his
2 The jury also convicted Bridges and Kristian Jones, whose convictions we later affirmed. See United States v. Bridges, No. 21-1679, 2022 WL 4244276 (3d Cir. Sep. 15, 2022). 3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 4 The Government urges that if we reach the merits of Jones’s unpreserved claims despite Rule 12’s timeliness requirements, “it is the defendant’s burden to establish plain error, as the claim was not presented to the district court.” Answering Br. 24. But we have explained that Rule 52(b)’s plain-error standard yields to Rule 12’s good-cause standard in this context because “[n]othing in the text of Rule 12 . . . supplants its good-cause standard of review in favor of Rule 52(b)’s plain-error standard.” United States v. Sok, 115 F.4th 251, 261 (3d Cir
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 16, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools