US v. Brian Thornton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00255-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999510476].. [14-4348]

Appeal: 14-4348

Doc: 28

Filed: 01/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4348

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRIAN ALLEN THORNTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00255-CCE-1)

Submitted:

December 22, 2014

Decided:

January 14, 2015

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Helen L. Parsonage, ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4348

Doc: 28

Filed: 01/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Brian
written

plea

interstate

Allen

Thornton

agreement,

commerce

by

to

pled

guilty,

conspiracy

robbery,

in

pursuant

to

to

interfere

violation

of

18

a

with
U.S.C.

§ 1951(a) (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of
a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012).
The court sentenced Thornton as a career offender to 250 months
in prison, a term below his advisory Guidelines range.
challenges his sentence on appeal.

Thornton

We affirm.

We review Thornton’s sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Cobler, 748 F.3d 570, 581
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 229 (2014).

“The first

step in this review requires us to ensure that the district
court

committed

no

significant

procedural

error,

improperly calculating the Guidelines range.”

such

as

United States v.

Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks

and

substantive

alterations

omitted).

reasonableness

of

We
the

must

sentence,

account the totality of the circumstances.”
51.

then

consider

“tak[ing]

the
into

Gall, 552 U.S. at

“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated

Guidelines

range

is

presumptively

[substantively]

reasonable.

Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
2

Appeal: 14-4348

Doc: 28

Filed: 01/14/2015

§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.”

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Louthian, 756

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 421 (2014).
The
provides,

in

U.S.

Sentencing

relevant

part,

Guidelines

that

a

Manual

defendant

(“USSG”)

is

a

career

offender if he was at least eighteen years old at the time of
the instant offense, the instant offense is a drug felony or
crime of violence, and the defendant has at least two prior
felony convictions for drug offenses or crimes of violence.
USSG

§ 4B1.1(a)

(2012).

Any

prior

sentence

of

See

imprisonment

exceeding one year and one month is counted if it resulted in
the defendant being incarcerated during any part of the fifteen
years preceding the commencement of his instant offense.

USSG

§§ 4A1.2(e)(1); 4B1.2 cmt. n.3 (stating that counting provisions
of USSG § 4A1.2 are applicable to counting of convictions under
§ 4B1.1).

Generally,

unless

a

prior

conviction

has

been

“reversed, vacated, or invalidated in a prior case,” the court
must count the conviction as a predicate conviction.
States v. Bacon, 94 F.3d 158, 161 (4th Cir. 1996).

United

The record

before this court establishes that Thornton’s prior convictions
satisfy
offender

the

requirements

enhancement,

as

for

the

they

application

resulted

in

his

of

the

career

incarceration

during the fifteen-year period prior to the commencement of the
instant

offense.

We

further

conclude
3

that

Thornton

has

not

Appeal: 14-4348

Doc: 28

Filed: 01/14/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded his belowGuidelines sentence.
district court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument as the facts and

contentions
this

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

addressed

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4