US v. Adesola Vanzant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00033-IMK-MJA-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999901037]. [15-4803]

Appeal: 15-4803

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4803

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADESOLA VANZANT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00033-IMK-MJA-2)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4803

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Adesola Vanzant appeals the 30-month sentence imposed upon
his guilty plea to aiding and abetting the possession of stolen
firearms,
(2012).

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 2,

922(j),

924(a)(2)

On appeal, Vanzant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant

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

are

whether

no

meritorious

the

district

grounds

court

for

erred

appeal

in

but

denying

questioning

a

sentencing

reduction for his role in the offense, as well as asserting
claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of
trial counsel.

Vanzant has not filed a supplemental pro se

brief despite being advised of his right to do so.

Finding no

meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
We review for clear error a district court’s determination
that a defendant is not entitled to a mitigating role reduction
at sentencing.
Cir. 2012).

United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th

The defendant bears the burden of establishing, by

a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to such a
reduction
(2015).
for

a

under

U.S.

Id. at 358-59.
§ 3B1.2

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 3B1.2

In evaluating a defendant’s eligibility

adjustment,

we

examine

“not

just

whether

the

defendant has done fewer bad acts than his codefendants, but
whether

the

defendant’s

committing the offense.”

conduct

is

material

or

essential

to

Id. at 359 (internal quotation marks
2

Appeal: 15-4803

Doc: 21

omitted).
the

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

Here, although Vanzant was not a principal player,

record

material.

plainly

establishes

that

his

participation

was

Thus, we conclude that the district court did not

clearly err in denying Vanzant a reduction pursuant to § 3B1.2.
Moreover, contrary to Vanzant’s suggestion in the Anders
brief,

the

misconduct,

record
and

we

contains
decline

no

to

evidence

consider

of

prosecutorial

Vanzant’s

ineffective

assistance claim on direct appeal because the record does not
conclusively establish his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.
United

States

v.

Baptiste,

596

F.3d

214,

216

n.1

(4th

See
Cir.

2010).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

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

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

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

If Vanzant 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 Vanzant.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

3

Appeal: 15-4803

Doc: 21

materials

before

Filed: 08/01/2016

this

court

Pg: 4 of 4

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4