US v. William David Pope

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00047-RLV-DCK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000020493]. [16-4381]

Appeal: 16-4381

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4381

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM DAVID POPE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00047-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

December 22, 2016

Decided:

February 9, 2017

Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland
Rose, United States Attorney, Elizabeth M. Greenough, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4381

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
William
agreement,

David
to

in

(b)(1)(B) (2012).
the

pled

possession

methamphetamine,

range,

Pope

guilty,

with

violation

of

without

intent
21

a

to

U.S.C.

written

distribute
§ 841(a)(1),

In calculating Pope’s Sentencing Guidelines

presentence

report

included

as

relevant

conduct

methamphetamine and firearms seized from an incident for which
Pope

was

indicted

but

did

not

plead

guilty. *

Over

Pope’s

objections, the district court adopted the PSR and sentenced him
to 121 months in prison, a term at the low end of the Guidelines
range.

Pope now appeals, challenging the calculation of drug

quantity

under

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 2D1.1(c),

Notes to Drug Quantity Table, (A) (2015), and the application of
an

enhancement

for

§ 2D1.1(b)(1).
We

the

possession

of

firearms

under

USSG

We affirm.

review

a

district

court’s

legal

conclusions

at

sentencing de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
United
2014).

States

v.

Gomez-Jimenez,

750

F.3d

370,

380

(4th

Cir.

“Under this clear error standard, we will reverse the

district court’s finding only if we are left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

*

United

The district court dismissed that charge and others on the
Government’s motion.

2

Appeal: 16-4381

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation

marks

omitted).

In

resolving

factual

disputes,

a

“sentencing court may give weight to any relevant information
before it, . . . provided that the information has sufficient
indicia of reliability to support its accuracy.”

Gomez-Jimenez,

750 F.3d at 380; see United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115,
120

(4th

district

Cir.

2014)

court’s

(affording

determinations

“considerable
regarding

the

deference

to

reliability

a
of

information in a PSR”).
Upon our review of the record and the parties’ arguments,
we

conclude

that

Pope

has

not

made

a

sufficient

showing

to

demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in calculating
his Guidelines range.

See Crawford, 734 F.3d at 342; United

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010).

Drug

quantities may be determined based on relevant conduct.

USSG

§ 2D1.1 cmt. n.5.

The evidence from the June 10 incident was

sufficiently connected to the offense to which Pope pled guilty.
See United States v. McVey, 752 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir. 2014)
(identifying

factors

to

connection of offenses).

consider

when

determining

sufficient

Pope further did not meet his burden

of establishing that it was clearly improbable that the firearms
seized on June 10 were not connected with the offense.
United

States

v.

Slade,

631

F.3d

185,

189

(4th

Cir.

(defendant has burden of establishing clear improbability).
3

See
2011)

Appeal: 16-4381

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4