US v. Vaughn Grove

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00263-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998614161].. [10-5072]

Appeal: 10-5072

Document: 31

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5072

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
VAUGHN RAMONE GROVE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cr-00263-1)

Submitted:

June 9, 2011

Decided:

June 17, 2011

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney,
Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5072

Document: 31

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Vaughn Ramone Grove pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006).

The district court

sentenced Grove to 151 months in prison, and Grove now appeals.
We affirm.
On
court

erred

appeal,
in

Grove

applying

first
an

contends

that

enhancement

the

pursuant

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2009).
increase

is

authorized

under

§ 2D1.1(b)(1)

if

district
to

U.S.

A two-level
the

defendant

possessed a dangerous weapon during the offense.

Application

Note

enhancement

“should

unless

is

3

to

applied

if

§ 2D1.1
the

explains

weapon

that

was

the

present,

it

clearly

improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”
district

court’s

factual

finding

that

Grove

be

possessed

The
a

dangerous weapon during the offense is reviewed for clear error.
United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001).
The government “need show only that the weapon was possessed
during the relevant illegal drug activity.”

Id.

“[P]roof of

constructive possession of the dangerous weapon is sufficient,
and

the

Government

is

entitled

evidence to carry its burden.”

to

rely

on

circumstantial

United States v. Manigan, 592

F.3d 621, 629 (4th Cir. 2010).

Because the firearm was found in

close

sum

proximity

to

a

large

2

of

cash

and

was

readily

Appeal: 10-5072

Document: 31

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 3 of 4

accessible, we readily conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in applying the two-level enhancement.
Grove
unreasonable.
applying

an

next

contends

that

his

151-month

sentence

is

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
abuse

of

discretion

standard.

Gall

v.

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564
F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).

In so doing, we first examine

the

procedural

sentence

for

“significant

error,”

including

“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.”
required

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
to

“robotically

tick

The district court is not
through

§

3553(a)’s

every

subsection.”

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th

Cir. 2006).

However, the district court “must place on the

record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular
facts of the case before it.
need

not

be

elaborate

or

This individualized assessment

lengthy,

but

it

must

provide

a

rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate
to

permit

‘meaningful

appellate

review.’”

United

States

v.

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted).

3

Appeal: 10-5072

Document: 31

A

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

reviewing

court

then

Page: 4 of 4

considers

the

substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances.
court

presumes

calculated

on

appeal

advisory

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

that

Guidelines

a

sentence

range

a

properly

reasonable.

is

within

This

United

States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v.
United

States,

551

U.S.

338,

346-56

(2007)

(upholding

presumption of reasonableness for within—Guidelines sentence).
After

thoroughly

reviewing

the

record,

we

conclude

that

the

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Grove
because

his

sentence

was

both

procedurally

and

substantively

reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4