US v. Antowan Thorne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief [999568978-2]. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00165-LMB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999611761]. [14-4878]

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4878

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTOWAN THORNE, a/k/a Smooth,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00165-LMB-1)

Submitted:

June 17, 2015

Decided:

June 30, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin F. Brooks, EDWIN F. BROOKS, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Michael P.
Ben’Ary, Assistant United States Attorney, Marc J. Birnbaum,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 11

PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, Antowan Thorne was convicted of
the lesser-included charge of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams
or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
(2012).

The

district

imprisonment,

which

court

was

sentenced

in

the

Thorne

middle

Guidelines range of 262-327 months.

of

to

300

his

months’

Sentencing

The calculation of this

range was driven by Thorne’s career offender designation.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2014).

See

This appeal

timely followed.
On appeal, Thorne raises four issues for our consideration.
He first challenges the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence
underlying

his

conviction

and

takes

issue

with

the

district

court’s decision to credit the cooperating witness’s testimony.
Thorne’s

next

three

Guidelines range.

issues

relate

to

the

computation

of

his

Specifically, Thorne asserts that one of his

career offender predicates was improperly counted and that the
district court erred in enhancing his base offense level for
possessing a firearm and obstructing justice.

For the reasons

that follow, we reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.
I.
Thorne
denying

his

first
Fed.

contends

that

R.

P.

conclusion of trial.

Crim.

the
29

district

motions

court

during

erred

and

at

in
the

We review de novo the denial of a Rule 29
2

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 3 of 11

motion for a judgment of acquittal.

United States v. Strayhorn,

743 F.3d 917, 921 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689
(2014).

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence

faces “a heavy burden.”

United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129,

137 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The

verdict must be sustained if “there is substantial evidence in
the

record,

when

government,

to

viewed

support

in

the

the

light

most

conviction.”

favorable
United

to

the

States

v.

Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

reasonable

“Substantial

finder

of

fact

evidence

could

is

accept

evidence
as

that

adequate

a

and

sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a

reasonable

doubt.”

alteration omitted).
the

reviewing

evidence

and

presented[.]”
omitted).

court,

Id.

(internal

quotation

marks

and

Furthermore, it is the trier-of-fact, “not
[that]

resolves

weighs

any

the

conflicts

credibility
in

the

of

the

evidence

McLean, 715 F.3d at 137 (internal quotation marks

“Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for

the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”

United

States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
To convict Thorne of conspiracy to distribute heroin, the
Government had to prove the following essential elements:

“(1)

an agreement between two or more persons to engage in conduct
3

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 4 of 11

that violates a federal drug law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge
of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant’s knowing and voluntary
participation in the conspiracy.”

United States v. Green, 599

F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010).
With

these

Government’s

standards

evidence

Thorne’s conviction.

in

was

mind,

more

we

than

conclude

sufficient

that
to

the

support

The cooperating witness testified that,

during the time period alleged in the indictment, the witness
and Thorne worked together to sell Thorne’s heroin to a broader
array of customers.

Thorne was the witness’s primary source for

heroin, and the witness sold between 100 and 150 grams of heroin
obtained

from

Thorne.

Their

relationship

was

based

on

the

common goal of selling more drugs and thus making more money.
Thorne nonetheless contends that the Government failed to
demonstrate a conspiracy because there was no direct evidence of
an agreement between Thorne and any co-conspirator; none of the
purchasers further sold the heroin they obtained from Thorne;
and there was no testimony establishing profit-sharing.
contends

that

the

witness

was,

at

the

most,

simply

Thorne
another

customer of Thorne’s.
Thorne’s

arguments

fail

on

this

record.

Individuals

involved in drug trafficking ventures do not memorialize their
agreements

in

writing,

and

we

have

long

recognized

that,

“[g]iven the ‘clandestine and covert’ nature of conspiracies,
4

Appeal: 14-4878

the

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

government

can

prove

Pg: 5 of 11

the

existence

circumstantial evidence alone.”
F.3d 519, 525 (4th Cir. 2014).
more

than

circumstantial

of

a

conspiracy

by

United States v. Howard, 773
Here, though, the Government had

evidence;

the

witness

testified,

directly, as to the purpose of joining forces with Thorne and to
obtaining heroin from Thorne for resale.

See United States v.

Edmonds, 679 F.3d 169, 174 (4th Cir.) (“[A]ny agreement made in
addition to or beyond the bare buy-sell transaction may be taken
to

infer

a

joint

enterprise

between

the

parties

beyond

the

simple distribution transaction and thereby support a finding of
conspiracy.”), vacated on other grounds, 133 S. Ct. 376 (2012).
Finally,

the

lack

of

evidence

of

profit-sharing

is

not

dispositive of whether a drug-trafficking conspiracy exists.
Thorne’s

attempts

to

likewise are unsuccessful.

undermine

the

witness’s

credibility

The district court, sitting as the

trier-of-fact, was in the best position to weigh the witness’s
credibility and demeanor, and acted well within its bounds in
choosing to credit the witness’s testimony.

See United States

v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 343 (4th Cir. 2013) (compiling Fourth
Circuit precedent for the proposition that, “although the factfinder

can

consider

a

witness’s

status

as

a

drug

user

or

criminal history in assessing his or her credibility, this Court
has not found that these attributes render a witness per se
unreliable”), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1528 (2014).
5

And, as the

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 6 of 11

district court noted, the witness’s testimony was corroborated
by

testimony

from

two

other

witnesses

who

regularly

and

frequently purchased heroin from both Thorne and the witness.
We thus affirm Thorne’s conviction.
II.
Thorne’s primary sentencing argument is that the district
court committed reversible procedural error in its application
of the modified categorical approach in determining his career
offender status.

For the reasons that follow, we find any error

in this regard to be harmless and thus affirm Thorne’s career
offender designation.
We

review

outside,

or

any

criminal

significantly

sentence,

outside

the

“whether

inside,

Guidelines

range,”

just
for

procedural and substantive reasonableness, 1 “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.”

United States v. King, 673 F.3d

274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38,

46,

51

(2007).

In

first

evaluating

procedural

reasonableness, this court considers whether the district court
properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range,
gave

the

parties

an

opportunity

to

argue

for

an

appropriate

sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors,

1

Thorne does not challenge the substantive reasonableness
of his sentence.

6

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 7 of 11

selected a sentence supported by the record, and sufficiently
explained that sentence.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

A defendant is a career offender if he was at least 18
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).

A

prior

conviction

qualifies as a “crime of violence” if the offense is punishable
by more than one year of imprisonment and, as relevant to this
case, “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person of another[.]”
§ 4B1.2(a)(1).

USSG

This court reviews de novo the district court’s

conclusion

that

a

prior

conviction

qualifies

as

a

crime

of

violence.

See United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 197 (4th

Cir. 2012).
Thorne only contests the viability of his second career
offender predicate, to wit:

Thorne’s 2008 guilty plea, in the

Superior Court for the District of Columbia, to conspiracy to
obstruct justice, and resulting 36-month sentence.

Thorne pled

guilty to violating D.C. Code § 22-722(a)(2)(A), which provides,
in relevant part:
A person commits the offense of obstruction of justice
if that person:
(2) Knowingly uses intimidating or physical force,
threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or by
7

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 8 of 11

threatening letter or communication, endeavors to
influence, intimidate, or impede a witness or officer
in any official proceeding, with intent to:
(A)
Influence,
delay,
or
prevent
the
truthful
testimony of the person in an official proceeding[.]
In
argued

his

objection

that

this

to

statute

the
of

use

of

this

conviction

was

predicate,

Thorne

divisible,

under

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), and thus that
the court needed to utilize the modified categorical approach to
determine

if

Thorne’s

conviction

qualified

as

a

crime

of

violence.

Considering only the factual proffer that accompanied

Thorne’s plea agreement in that matter, defense counsel argued
that it did not support a finding that Thorne was convicted of a
crime of violence because it established, at the most, a threat
of harm to an individual made vis-à-vis a third party.
The district court first rejected this argument based on
the factual proffer.
conclusion

by

recommendation,
revocation
which

the

But the court went on to buttress this

citing
in

proceeding

the

magistrate

Thorne’s
in

magistrate

unrelated

another

judge

federal

recommended

judge’s

report

supervised

and

release

district

court,

finding

that

in

this

conviction qualified as a crime of violence under the modified
categorical approach.
On

appeal,

Thorne

claims

the

district

court

committed

reversible procedural error in relying on the magistrate judge’s

8

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 9 of 11

recommendation to support its analysis.

As we have explained,

the modified categorical approach:
[M]ay be used in cases where the state statute under
which the defendant was previously convicted sets out
one
or
more
elements
of
the
offense
in
the
alternative, but not where the statute is indivisible.
Moreover,
even
under
the
modified
categorical
approach, the later court is generally limited to
examining the statutory definition, charging document,
written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy,
and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to
which the defendant assented.
The judge may not
consider police reports or complaint applications.
United States v. Flores-Granados, 783 F.3d 487, 491 (4th Cir.
2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
agree

that

magistrate

the

district

judge’s

report

court
in

the

erred

in

unrelated

We thus

considering

the

revocation

case

because this is not a Shepard 2-approved source.
However, this error is rendered harmless by the fact that
the district court announced a perfectly sound basis for the
same finding immediately prior to noting its consideration of
the

magistrate

accompanying

judge’s

the

plea

report:

that

agreement

established

2

the

factual

proffer

that

Thorne’s

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005).
As we
recently explained, in assessing a prior guilty plea, Shepardapproved
documents
include
“the
charging
document,
plea
agreement, plea transcript between the judge and the defendant
in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the
defendant, or to some comparable judicial record of this
information.”
United States v. Span, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL
3541800, at *4 (4th Cir. June 8, 2015) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

9

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 10 of 11

conviction was for a crime of violence.

Indeed, the agreed-upon

factual proffer clearly established that the threatened use of
physical

force

conviction

against

under

D.C.

another
Code

was

an

element

§ 22-722(a)(2)(A)

—

of
even

Thorne’s
if

that

threat was not directly communicated to the intended victim.
See USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1).
Significantly,

Thorne

does

not

challenge

the

general

propriety of the district court’s utilization of the modified
categorical

approach

or

reliance

on

this

Shepard-approved

source, and we discern no error in the court’s conclusion based
thereon.

We thus affirm the career offender designation despite

the procedural error.

See United States v. Savillon–Matute, 636

F.3d 119, 123–24 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining the harmless error
analysis

employed

when

evaluating

claims

of

procedural

sentencing error).
Our disposition of this issue effectively moots Thorne’s
challenges to the two-level firearm enhancement and the twolevel obstruction of justice adjustment.

Because the offense

level established under the career offender Guideline was more
than the offense level calculated using the Guidelines for the
drug offense including any specific offense characteristic or

10

Appeal: 14-4878

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 11 of 11

adjustment, 3 neither the firearm enhancement nor the obstruction
adjustment

affected

Thorne’s

sentence.

Accordingly,

we

find

these arguments are moot.
For these reasons, we affirm the criminal judgment.

We

deny Thorne’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief in this
counseled appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3

Prior to application of the career offender Guideline,
Thorne had an adjusted offense level of 32 and his criminal
history category was IV.
As a career offender, Thorne’s total
adjusted offense level increased to 34, and he was placed in
criminal history category VI. See USSG § 4B1.1(b)(2).

11