US v. William David Pope
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00047-RLV-DCK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [16-4381]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
WILLIAM DAVID POPE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00047-RLV-DCK-1)
December 22, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
In calculating Pope’s Sentencing Guidelines
methamphetamine and firearms seized from an incident for which
objections, the district court adopted the PSR and sentenced him
to 121 months in prison, a term at the low end of the Guidelines
Pope now appeals, challenging the calculation of drug
Notes to Drug Quantity Table, (A) (2015), and the application of
sentencing de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
“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.”
The district court dismissed that charge and others on the
Pg: 3 of 4
States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal
“sentencing court may give weight to any relevant information
before it, . . . provided that the information has sufficient
indicia of reliability to support its accuracy.”
750 F.3d at 380; see United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115,
information in a PSR”).
Upon our review of the record and the parties’ arguments,
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).
quantities may be determined based on relevant conduct.
§ 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)
connection of offenses).
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.
(defendant has burden of establishing clear improbability).
Pg: 4 of 4
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
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?