US v. Theron Thompson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THERON JERMAINE THOMPSON, a/k/a Freak, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00004-FL-1)
October 29, 2009
December 1, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James M. Ayers II, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Theron Jermaine Thompson pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006), three counts of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, and distribution of an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court
sentenced Thompson to 320 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, a $10,000 fine, and a $500 special
assessment, and Thompson timely appealed.
On appeal, counsel
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in enhancing Thompson's offense level for possession of a firearm and for a management role in the offense. filed a pro se supplemental brief. file a brief. We affirm. Thompson has also
The Government declined to
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). of both This the Gall v. United States, 552 review procedural Id. requires and appellate substantive
reasonableness of a sentence.
After determining whether
the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory 2
factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. "Regardless below, or of whether the district sentence, court it Id. at 49-51. an above, on the
record an `individualized assessment' based on the particular facts of the case before it." 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d Finally this court reviews the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, "taking into account the `totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.'" United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). Thompson argues that the district court erred in
enhancing his sentence for possession of a firearm, noting that the authorities did not find a firearm in his possession, and asserting that the evidence used by the district court was too unreliable to support the enhancement. The district court's
determination that the defendant warrants a sentence enhancement is reviewed for clear error. 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002). level enhancement "[i]f a of a United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d The Guidelines provide for a twodefendant's weapon 3 offense level a for drug was
possessed," and explain that the enhancement "should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3) (2008). "In order to prove that a weapon was present, the Government need show only that the weapon was possessed during the relevant illegal drug activity." United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d The Government need not prove the beyond a reasonable a doubt, as of the the
228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001). possession standard evidence. Cir. 2008). of a firearm at
United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 562-63 (4th Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
the evidence was sufficient to support the enhancement, and the district court did not err in imposing it. Counsel next argues that the court erred in imposing the three-level enhancement for Thompson's role in the offense. A "court's ruling regarding for a role adjustment is a factual v.
determination Kellam, 568
reviewed F.3d 125,
qualifies for a three-level enhancement if he "was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive." participant USSG § 3B1.1(b). is sufficient as "Leadership over only one other long 4 as there is some control
exercised." Cir. 2003). establish
United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to Thompson was a manager or supervisor of a The
criminal activity that involved at least five individuals. district court properly imposed the leadership enhancement.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. We have
considered the arguments in Thompson's pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we deny
Thompson's pro se "motion for leave of court for prepayment of forensic chemist," deny his pro se "motion for leave of court for discovery and/or correction of the record," deny counsel's motion to withdraw from representation, and affirm Thompson's convictions inform Supreme and sentence. in the This of court the requires right to that counsel the If
Thompson, Court of
Thompson 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 Thompson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
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?