US v. Thomas Snead, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00053-CCE-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999941912]. [15-4724]

Appeal: 15-4724

Doc: 50

Filed: 10/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS LESLIE SNEAD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00053-CCE-2)

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Decided:

October 5, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Michael Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4724

Doc: 50

Filed: 10/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Thomas
written

Leslie

Jr.,

agreement,

plea

Snead,

pled

to

guilty,

conspiracy

pursuant
to

to

manufacture

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
district court sentenced Snead to 160 months’ imprisonment.
accordance

with

Anders

v.

California,

386

a

U.S.

738

The
In

(1967),

Snead’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no
meritorious
district

grounds

court

for

appeal

procedurally

but

erred

questioning
in

whether

calculating

the

Snead’s

criminal history category and in failing to give Snead credit in
the criminal judgment for pretrial detention.

We affirm the

district court’s judgment.
We

review

a

defendant’s

abuse-of-discretion standard.”
38, 41 (2007).

sentence

“under

a

deferential

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for

both procedural and substantive reasonableness.

Id. at 51.

In

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district

court

properly

calculated

the

defendant’s

advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue

for

§ 3553(a)

an

appropriate

(2012)

selected sentence.

factors,

sentence,
and

Id. at 49-51.

considered

sufficiently

the

18

U.S.C.

explained

the

Because Snead did not object

in the district court to the procedural errors he raises on

2

Appeal: 15-4724

Doc: 50

Filed: 10/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

appeal, our review is for plain error.

United States v. Moore,

810 F.3d 932, 939 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard).
We conclude that the district court did not procedurally
err

in

imposing

whether

the

Snead’s

court

sentence.

properly

Counsel

applied

two

first

points

questions

to

Snead’s

criminal history score for having committed the instant offense
while

on

probation.

See

(2014).

Because

§ 4A1.1(d)

U.S.

Sentencing

Snead

failed

Guidelines
to

object

Manual
to

the

presentence report’s factual findings that a codefendant began
purchasing pseudoephedrine for him in 2012 or to object on the
basis

that

he

was

only

on

probation

until

June

2012,

the

district court was entitled to accept the PSR’s factual findings
in applying the two points under § 4A1.1(d).

See United States

v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that, in
absence of affirmative showing that information contained in PSR
is unreliable, district court is free to adopt PSR’s factual
findings).
Counsel next questions whether the district court erred in
failing to credit Snead for pretrial detention.

However, it is

the Attorney General’s obligation, not the district court’s, to
calculate such credit.
334-35 (1992).

United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,

Moreover, a federal prisoner must challenge the

calculation of his sentence via the appropriate administrative

3

Appeal: 15-4724

Doc: 50

Filed: 10/05/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

channels, and if necessary, in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.

See United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 489-90 (4th

Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

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

If Snead requests that a petition be filed, but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Snead.
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