US v. Tramartie Grade
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00131-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. .. [16-4151]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
TRAMARTIE GRADE, a/k/a Tremartie Grade,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00131-MOC-1)
September 30, 2016
October 5, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Tramartie Grade appeals his 92-month sentence following his
guilty plea for unlawfully possessing a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
On appeal, Grade argues that the
district court clearly erred during sentencing when it applied
error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s factual findings underlying a
cross-reference application for clear error.
Ashford, 718 F.3d 377, 380 (4th Cir. 2013).
United States v.
The government must
prove the facts underlying a cross-reference by a preponderance
of the evidence.
United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177, 182 (4th
(1) the evidence does not support a finding
that Grade possessed the malice required for attempted murder,
and (2) the facts support a finding of self-defense.
the testimony presented at Grade’s sentencing hearing and the
district court’s credibility determinations, we find no clear
error in the district court’s finding that a preponderance of
aforethought for murder); United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405,
Pg: 3 of 3
419-20 (4th Cir. 2012) (requiring government to show defendant
testimony of either the Government’s witnesses or Grade support
a finding of self-defense.
Thus, the district court did not
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
contentions were adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?