US v. Jeronza Thorne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00293-MOC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999939792].. [16-4060]

Appeal: 16-4060

Doc: 50

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4060

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERONZA THORNE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00293-MOC-1)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4060

Doc: 50

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jeronza Thorne was convicted by a jury of various offenses
arising

out

of

conspiracy.

his

participation

in

a

stash

house

robbery

The district court sentenced him to 137 months’

imprisonment, a term at the bottom of the applicable Sentencing
Guidelines range.

Thorne now appeals, arguing that the district

court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment,
which claimed outrageous Government conduct.
alleges

that

manipulation

the

Government’s

and

thus

conduct

merited

a

Further, Thorne

amounted
downward

to

sentencing

departure

at

sentencing.
In

reviewing

the

denial

of

a

motion

to

dismiss

an

indictment, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
Woolfolk,

399

F.3d

590,

594

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2005).

We

review

a

sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007).
The Supreme Court has recognized that, in an extreme case,
governmental misconduct may be so outrageous that it requires
dismissal of charges against a defendant under the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
U.S. 423, 432 (1973).

United States v. Russell, 411

“In order to constitute a due process

violation, the government’s conduct must be so outrageous as to
2

Appeal: 16-4060

shock

Doc: 50

the

Filed: 10/03/2016

conscience

of

Pg: 3 of 4

the

court”

or

be

traditional notions of fundamental fairness.”

“offensive

to

United States v.

Osborne, 935 F.2d 32, 36, 37 (4th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

“Outrageous is not a label properly applied to

conduct

it

because

is

involving contraband.”

a

sting

or

reverse

sting

operation

United States v. Goodwin, 854 F.2d 33,

37 (4th Cir. 1988).
We have rejected arguments of outrageous Government conduct
in other stash house robbery sting operations.

United States v.

Hare, 820 F.3d 93, 102-04 (4th Cir. 2016), petition for cert.
filed,

__

U.S.L.W.

__

(U.S.

July

18,

2016)

(No.

16-5348).

Thorne attempts to distinguish his case from Hare, asserting
that the Government acted outrageously in his case by failing to
seek his detention for charged supervised release violations,
which would have prevented him from being able to continue in
the

conspiracy.

We

agree

with

the

district

court

that

the

Government’s conduct in this case is not offensive to societal
principles
Thorne’s

of

fairness.

sentencing

Osborne,

argument

935

turns

F.2d
on

at
his

37.

Because

unsuccessful

allegation of outrageous Government conduct, we also reject that
claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-4060

Doc: 50

contentions

are

Filed: 10/03/2016

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4