US v. William Rone
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00219-TDS-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999255879].. [13-4137]
Appeal: 13-4137
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/10/2013
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ALLEN RONE, a/k/a Tweet,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00219-TDS-4)
Submitted:
November 21, 2013
Decided:
December 10, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles L. White, II, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4137
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/10/2013
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
William Allen Rone pled guilty to distributing cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and being a
felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2012).
The district court sentenced Rone to 168
months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Rone argues that his sentence
is procedurally unreasonable because the district court erred in
its calculation of the drug quantity applicable to Rone.
We
affirm.
We
review
deferential
sentences
for
abuse-of-discretion
reasonableness
standard.”
Gall
“under
v.
a
United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
This review entails appellate
consideration
procedural
of
both
the
reasonableness of the sentence.
procedural
court
reasonableness,
properly
range,
gave
calculated
the
parties
we
and
Id. at 51.
consider
In determining
whether
the
defendant’s
an
opportunity
substantive
the
advisory
to
district
Guidelines
argue
for
an
appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, did not rely on clearly erroneous facts in selecting
the sentence, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id. at 49-51.
We review the district court’s drug quantity
finding underlying its calculation of the base offense level for
clear error.
5861809,
at
United States v. Crawford, __ F.3d __, __, 2013 WL
*2
(4th
Cir.
Nov.
2
1,
2013).
This
deferential
Appeal: 13-4137
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/10/2013
Pg: 3 of 4
standard of review requires reversal only if we, upon review of
the record as a whole, “[are] left with the definite and firm
conviction
that
a
mistake
has
been
committed.”
Easley
v.
Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The district court’s calculation of the drug quantity
attributable
to
federal agents.
Rone
was
based
on
statements
Rone
made
to
At the sentencing hearing, Rone did not dispute
that he actually made the statements; he argued instead that he
had not been truthful.
The district court therefore had to make
a credibility determination as to whether Rone was lying at the
sentencing hearing or whether he had previously lied to federal
agents.
The
record
reveals
that
the
district
court
heard
evidence from Rone and the Government, carefully considered that
evidence,
and
resolved
Government’s favor.
292
(4th
Cir.)
the
credibility
determination
in
the
See United States v. Henry, 673 F.3d 285,
(according
district
court’s
credibility
determinations at sentencing “great difference”), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 182 (2012).
In the face of this record, we are not
left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court
made a mistake.
Therefore, we conclude that Rone’s sentence is
procedurally reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
3
because
the
facts
and
legal
Appeal: 13-4137
Doc: 30
contentions
are
Filed: 12/10/2013
adequately
Pg: 4 of 4
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional 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?