US v. Charles Cadle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00083-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998864722].. [11-5203]

Appeal: 11-5203

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES STEPHEN CADLE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00083-1)

Submitted:

May 16, 2012

Decided:

May 31, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Christopher D. Lefler, LEFLER & BOGGS, Beckley, West Virginia,
for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney,
John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5203

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Charles Stephen Cadle pled guilty to an information
charging

him

with

aiding

and

abetting

the

distribution

of

oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2006).

In his plea agreement, Cadle waived his right to appeal

a sentence within the Guidelines range, but reserved the right
to challenge the district court’s determination of his role in
the offense if the issue was preserved by an objection.

Cadle

was sentenced to a term of fifty-seven months’ imprisonment, the
bottom of his sentencing Guidelines range.

Cadle contends on

appeal that the district court clearly erred in finding that his
role in the offense was that of an organizer, leader, manager,
or

supervisor

warranting

a

two-level

adjustment

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2011).
that

his

sentence

unreasonable.

was

procedurally

under

U.S.

He also claims

and

substantively

We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

During a drug investigation in 2009, a confidential
informant bought oxycodone on three occasions at Cadle’s home.
The

first

time,

Cadle

told

the

informant

Chrystal, would conduct the transaction.

that

his

daughter,

Chrystal asked another

person, Kenneth Cline, to go next door and get the drugs.

She

then handed the drugs to the informant and took the money.

On

the next two occasions, the informant went to Cadle’s house and
bought

oxycodone

from

Chrystal
2

each

time.

After

a

search

Appeal: 11-5203

Doc: 25

warrant

was

Filed: 05/31/2012

executed

at

Pg: 3 of 5

Cadle’s

home

in

October

2009,

and

various prescription medications were located in a safe, Cadle
gave

a

statement

prescription

to

investigators.

medications

from

usually through Chrystal.

other

He
people

to

give

a

bought

resold

and

he

them,

Cadle’s wife also gave a statement,

which corroborated her husband’s account.
refused

said

statement,

but

in

Chrystal initially
2011

she

spoke

to

investigators and told them that she had sold oxycodone for her
father, and for Kenneth Cline, for about a year.

She said Cadle

paid her in oxycodone pills, to which she was addicted.
The

district

court’s

determination

that

a

defendant

qualifies as a “leader” under USSG § 3B.1.1(c) is a factual
finding reviewed for clear error.
F.3d 179, 184 (4th Cir. 2009).
adjustment

if

he

was

an

United States v. Cameron, 573
A defendant merits a two-level

“organizer,

leader,

manager,

or

supervisor” in any criminal activity that did not involve five
or

more

participants

§ 3B1.1(c).
have

been

and

was

not

otherwise

extensive.

USSG

To qualify for the adjustment, the defendant must
“an

organizer,

leader,

manager

or

supervisor

of

people.”

United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 226 (4th Cir.

2002).

“Leadership

over

only

one

other

participant

sufficient as long as there is some control exercised.”
States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003).

3

is

United

Appeal: 11-5203

Doc: 25

Here,

Filed: 05/31/2012

Cadle

Pg: 4 of 5

contends

that

the

evidence

showed

only

that he obtained drugs and allowed his daughter to sell them,
but not that he exercised decision-making authority or control
over other participants.

However, the district court had before

it statements from three participants in the sale of drugs from
Cadle’s home, which established that Cadle directed Chrystal to
sell oxycodone and other drugs to customers and kept all the
proceeds, paying Chrystal in pills to support her addiction.

On

this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding
that the aggravated role adjustment was appropriate.
Cadle

next

maintains

that

the

district

court

procedurally erred when it applied the § 3B1.1(c) adjustment and
also

that

his

within-Guidelines

sentence

was

substantively

unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to fulfill
the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).

See Gall v.

United

States,

of

Cadle

does

not

552

U.S.

address

38,
the

51

(2007)

waiver

(standard

provision

in

review).
his

plea

However, the government seeks to enforce the waiver. 1

agreement.

A waiver of appeal rights is reviewed de novo, and is
enforceable if it is knowing and voluntary, and the issue raised
on appeal is within the scope of the waiver.

1

United States v.

The government concedes that Cadle reserved the right to
appeal the role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1(c).

4

Appeal: 11-5203

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 5 of 5

Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012).

Generally, a

waiver is valid if the district court questions the defendant
about the waiver during the guilty plea hearing and the record
demonstrates that the defendant understood the significance of
the waiver.

Id.

Here, the district court asked Cadle whether

he understood that he was agreeing to give up his right to
appeal his sentence “on any ground whatsoever,” as long as the
sentence

was

within

answered that he did.
his waiver.

or

below

the

Guidelines

range.

Cadle does not challenge the

Cadle

validity of

We conclude that the waiver is enforceable. 2

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment, but
dismiss that portion of the appeal in which Cadle seeks review
of the reasonableness of his sentence.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the Court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

2

We note that, even if the waiver were not enforceable,
Cadle has not shown that his sentence is either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable.
The court did not err procedurally
in calculating Cadle’s Guidelines range. Moreover, an appellate
court may treat a sentence within a correctly calculated
Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable.
Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346 (2007).
Although the presumption is
rebuttable, see United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
217 (4th Cir. 2010), Cadle has not rebutted the presumption.

5