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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000020493]. [16-4381]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4381 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM DAVID POPE, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?