US v. Clarence Thompson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00049-IMK-JSK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999697704].. [15-4172]
Appeal: 15-4172
Doc: 29
Filed: 11/12/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLARENCE THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00049-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted:
October 27, 2015
Decided:
November 12, 2015
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia;
Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant.
Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; David J.
Perri,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Wheeling,
West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4172
Doc: 29
Filed: 11/12/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Thompson pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1)
(2012).
The
district
Thompson to 70 months’ imprisonment.
court
sentenced
Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether Thompson’s sentence is reasonable.
Thompson filed a
supplemental pro se brief, arguing that his criminal history
category was miscalculated.
We
review
deferential
a
We affirm.
sentence
for
abuse-of-discretion
reasonableness,
standard.”
applying
Gall
v.
“a
United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
This review entails appellate
consideration
of
procedural
reasonableness
of
procedural
court
both
the
sentence.
reasonableness,
properly
the
calculated
we
the
Id.
at
consider
and
51.
whether
defendant’s
substantive
In
assessing
the
district
advisory
Sentencing
Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
an
appropriate
(2012)
factors,
sentence.
sentence,
and
considered
sufficiently
Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.
the
18
U.S.C.
explained
the
§ 3553(a)
selected
If there are no procedural
errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.”
at 51.
Id.
A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within
2
Appeal: 15-4172
Doc: 29
Filed: 11/12/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
the Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted
by
showing
against
that
the
18
U.S.C.
the
sentence
§
is
3553(a)
unreasonable
factors.”
when
United
measured
States
v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).
In
this
case,
the
record
establishes
that
Thompson’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Thompson
contends
erroneously
that
assessed
six
one
of
his
criminal
prior
history
Though
convictions
points,
the
was
record
reveals that the challenged conviction was, in fact, properly
assessed three points.
We also reject the argument that Thompson’s sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court could have
departed from the Guidelines to account for the time he served
in
state
custody.
We
do
not
“review
a
sentencing
court’s
decision not to depart unless the court mistakenly believed that
it lacked the authority to do so.”
Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306.
The record makes clear that the district court knew it could
depart,
but
discretion.
chose
not
to,
a
decision
wholly
within
its
Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to vary downward from the Guidelines range.
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We therefore affirm Thompson’s conviction and sentence.
3
Appeal: 15-4172
Doc: 29
Filed: 11/12/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
This court requires that counsel inform Thompson, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Thompson 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 Thompson.
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
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?