US v. Corey Ronshion Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00069-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871689].. [15-4774]

Appeal: 15-4774

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4774

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
COREY RONSHION THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00069-RJC-1)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4774

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Corey Ronshion Thomas pled guilty without a plea agreement
to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that

there

questioning

are

no

whether

meritorious
Thomas’

grounds

prior

North

for

appeal,

Carolina

but

controlled

substance conviction was punishable for a term exceeding one
year, as necessary to justify the enhanced base offense level
assigned to Thomas at sentencing.

Although advised of his right

to do so, Thomas has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Government declined to file a response brief.

The

Finding no error,

we affirm.
A review of the district court record confirms that Thomas
has a prior North Carolina conviction for felony possession with
intent to sell and deliver marijuana, for which he received a
suspended

sentence

of

6

to

17

months

in

prison.

Counsel

suggests that, because the North Carolina Justice Reinvestment
Act of 2011 required the last 9 months of this sentence to be
served on post-release supervision, the state conviction was not
punishable by a “term exceeding one year[,]” as required by U.S.
Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§§ 2K2.1(a)(4),

4B1.2(a)

(2014).

Counsel appropriately concedes, however, that this argument is
foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Barlow,
2

Appeal: 15-4774

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

811 F.3d 133, 140 (4th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that “the North
Carolina

legislature

clearly

intended

to

include

post-release

supervision as part of a felon’s term of imprisonment[,]” which
requires this court to “ask only what term of imprisonment the
defendant was exposed to for his conviction, not the most likely
duration of his imprisonment”), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___,
2016 WL 1465057 (U.S. May 16, 2016).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
its entirety and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

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

If Thomas 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 Thomas.

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

3