US v. Dustin Hinckle
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00027-GMG-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4249]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DUSTIN WADE HINCKLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00027-GMG-RWT-1)
October 31, 2016
December 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
Dustin Wade Hinckle appeals his conviction and 120-month
sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of being a felon
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2012).
On appeal, Hinckle raises four challenges.
First, Hinckle argues that the district court erred when it
denied his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.
We review de novo the denial of a Rule 29 motion.
v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011).
The jury verdict
government, to support the conviction.”
Id. (internal quotation
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.”
Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks
Hinckle challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he
possessed the firearms, a requirement under both §§ 922(g)(1)
The Government, however, submitted sufficient proof
that Hinckle constructively possessed the firearms.
States v. Scott, 424 F.3d 431, 435-36 (4th Cir. 2005).
Pg: 3 of 5
Second, Hinckle argues that the district court erred in
interstate nexus of the firearms.
We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying the agent as an
See United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 273 (4th
Cir. 2007) (setting out standard of review).
This court has
establish the interstate nexus requirement.
See, e.g., United
States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 740 (4th Cir. 2006); United
States v. Simmons, 773 F.2d 1455, 1457-58 (4th Cir. 1985).
perceive no error in the district court’s ruling in this case.
Third, Hinckle challenges the district court’s denial of
one of his objections to his presentence report. ∗
On appeal, we
presentence report, and “will not disturb [those determinations]
unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.”
United States v. McDowell, 745
Hinckle referred to two objections in his brief, but
presented no argument to support one of them. Thus, we confine
our analysis to the objection fully argued in the brief.
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440
F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (observing that single
conclusory sentence in argument section was insufficient to
raise the issue on appeal).
Pg: 4 of 5
In particular, Hinckle argues that the district court erred
history point for a diversionary disposition.
disposition resulting from a finding or admission of guilt, or a
plea of nolo contendere, in a judicial proceeding” counts as a
contends that USSG § 4A1.2(f) does not apply to his diversionary
disposition because the disposition sheet does not indicate that
Hinckle entered a no contest plea nor does it contain a finding
or admission of guilt.
The record, however, does not leave us with a definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
court judge recognized that Hinckle signed a no contest plea and
that Hinckle’s plea would be subject to W. Va. Code § 60A-4-407
(2006), which requires an admission or finding of guilt.
United States v. Martinez-Melgar, 591 F.3d 733, 738 (4th Cir.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
This review considers both the
Pg: 5 of 5
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
In assessing procedural reasonableness, we consider factors such
as whether the district court properly calculated the Sentencing
factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed.
If no procedural errors exist, we consider the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence, evaluating “the totality of the
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. §
Having found no procedural error, we
conclude that Hinckle also failed to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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?