US v. Gregory Wall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00337-RJC-14 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999625991].. [14-4765]

Appeal: 14-4765

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY WALL, a/k/a Yomi,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00337-RJC-14)

Submitted:

July 21, 2015

Decided:

July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick M. Wright, Jr., WRIGHT LAW FIRM OF CHARLOTTE, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant; Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4765

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gregory

Wall

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

written

plea

agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at
least 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and was
sentenced

to

imprisonment.

a

below-Guidelines

sentence

of

46

months’

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues:

(1) whether the appellate waiver contained in Wall’s plea

agreement is valid, (2) whether the district court erred in holding
Wall responsible for between 700 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana
for sentencing purposes, and (3) whether the district court erred
in denying Wall’s request for a four-level reduction for being a
minimal participant, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(a)
(2013).

Although

informed

of

his

right

supplemental brief, Wall has not done so.

to

file

a

pro

se

We affirm.

Because the Government has not moved to dismiss Wall’s appeal,
we need not address his challenges to the validity of the appellate
waiver provision in his plea agreement.

See United States v.

Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000).
Next, counsel questions whether the district court erred in
holding Wall responsible for between 700 and 1000 kilograms of
marijuana. We review a district court’s factual findings regarding
drug quantity for clear error.

United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d
2

Appeal: 14-4765

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/23/2015

415 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pg: 3 of 4

The Government is required to prove a

defendant’s drug quantity under the Guidelines by a preponderance
of the evidence, id. at 422, but the defendant bears the burden to
demonstrate that the information contained in the presentence
report is unreliable or inaccurate.
F.3d 456, 461–62 (4th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Kiulin, 360
Our review of the record leads

us to conclude that Wall did not meet his burden of demonstrating
that the drug quantity calculation was based on unreliable or
inaccurate information.

Accordingly, we find no clear error in

the district court’s determination that Wall was responsible for
between 700 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana.
Finally, counsel questions whether the district court erred
in denying Wall’s request for a four-level reduction for being a
minimal participant.

A defendant seeking a downward adjustment

for his or her minimal role in the offense must prove that he or
she is entitled to it by a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999).

See
We

review the district court’s determination on this issue for clear
error.

United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir.

1989).

We have reviewed the record and find that the district

court’s denial of Wall’s request for a reduction based on his role
in the offense was not clearly erroneous.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed these issues and
the record in this case, and have found no meritorious issues for
3

Appeal: 14-4765

appeal.

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

We therefore affirm Wall’s conviction and sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Wall, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If Wall 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 Wall.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4