US v. Jeronza Thorne

Filing 920090316

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JERONZA THORNE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00448-RJC-1) Submitted: February 11, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Steven Slawinski, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeronza Thorne pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, district in violation of 18 U.S.C. Thorne 922(g)(1) to (2006). The court sentenced seventy-two months' imprisonment, and Thorne timely noted his appeal. counsel for Thorne 386 has filed 738 a brief in pursuant which to On appeal, Anders raises v. two California, U.S. (1967), he potential errors for review. * Thorne first Finding no error, we affirm. whether the district court questions erred in counting his two prior felony sentences separately for guidelines calculation purposes because the offenses were consolidated for sentencing. September and October 2000 The record reveals that Thorne's offenses were separated from his June 5, 2001 offenses by his arrest on January 7, 2001. "Prior sentences are always counted separately if the sentences were imposed arrest." (2007). for offenses U.S. that were separated by an intervening Sentencing Guidelines Manual 4A1.2(a)(1) Accordingly, the district court did not err in counting Thorne's offenses separately in calculating his criminal history Thorne was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He has elected not to do so. The Government declined to file a brief. * 2 category. Cir. 1999). See United States v. Huggins, 191 F.3d 532, 539 (4th Thorne next questions whether the district court erred in enhancing his base offense level by two levels because the firearm was stolen. Thorne claims he was unaware that the firearm was stolen. Even if true, however, this argument offers Thorne no comfort which as Application the Note 8(B) to USSG for a 2K2.1(b)(4), stolen provides no two-level enhancement it firearm, contains scienter requirement; applies even if the defendant did not know or have reason to know the firearm was stolen. USSG 2K2.1(b)(4); see, e.g., United States v. Martin, 339 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the district court did not err in enhancing Thorne's base offense level two levels. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Thorne's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Thorne, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Thorne requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Thorne. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?