US v. Stephen Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-4. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999828656].. [15-4418]

Appeal: 15-4418

Doc: 40

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4418

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN FRANKLIN WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-4)

Submitted:

March 31, 2016

Decided:

May 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie E. McKnight, MCKNIGHT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4418

Doc: 40

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Stephen Franklin Wood appeals the downward variant sentence
of 170 months imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to
distribute, possess with intent to distribute, and manufacture
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846
(2012).

On appeal, Wood’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are

no

meritorious

reasonableness

of

grounds
Wood’s

for

appeal

sentence.

but

questioning
questions

the

Counsel

the

district court’s denial of Wood’s motion for a downward variance
to

the

statutory

enhancement

for

a

minimum

and

application

substantial

risk

of

harm

of

a

three-level

pursuant

to

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(13)(C)(ii) (2014).
has

filed

a

pro

se

supplemental

brief,

asserting

U.S.
Wood

additional

claims that the district court erred in ordering him ineligible
for federal benefits for a period of 10 years, placing undue
reliance on his criminal history, and selecting a sentence that
was substantially higher than those of his codefendants.

We

affirm.
We conclude that Wood’s sentence is both procedurally and
substantively

reasonable.

withdrew

objection

his

The
to

the

record

establishes

three-level

that

enhancement

Wood
for

creating a substantial risk of harm; therefore, Wood has waived
appellate review of the issue.

United States v. Robinson, 744
2

Appeal: 15-4418

Doc: 40

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 225 (2014).
The district court otherwise properly calculated the applicable
Sentencing

Guidelines

range,

and

the

court

appropriately

explained the sentence in the context of the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors.
519,

528

(4th

Cir.

See United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d

2014).

Thus,

our

review

of

the

record

reveals no procedural error in Wood’s sentence.
Additionally,

Wood’s

below-Guidelines

sentence

is

presumptively substantively reasonable, and Wood fails to rebut
that presumption on appeal.

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

The

mere fact that many of Wood’s coconspirators received a lower
downward variant sentence to or near the statutory minimum is
insufficient to require vacating Wood’s sentence, United States
v. Pierce, 409 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir. 2005), and Wood has not
demonstrated

that

he

and

his

coconspirators

were

similarly

situated.

Moreover, the district court offered ample reasons

rooted

the

in

§ 3553(a)

factors

variance to the statutory minimum.
552

U.S.

38,

51

(2007)

for

rejecting

a

downward

See Gall v. United States,

(“[Appellate

courts]

must

give

due

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”).
Lastly,

Wood

contends

that

the

district

denying him federal benefits for 10 years.
3

court

erred

in

We conclude this

Appeal: 15-4418

Doc: 40

Filed: 05/20/2016

issue is meritless.
criminal

judgment

Pg: 4 of 4

Nowhere in the sentencing transcript or

does

the

district

court

deny

Wood

federal

benefits.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and find no meritorious ground for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Wood, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Wood requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

and

materials

legal
before

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Wood.
facts

court

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4