United States v. William Pope , 676 F. App'x 180 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William David Pope pled guilty, without a written
agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B) (2012). In calculating Pope’s Sentencing Guidelines
range, the 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 the possession of firearms under USSG
§ 2D1.1(b)(1). We affirm.
We review a district court’s legal conclusions at
sentencing de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 380 (4th Cir.
2014). “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
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 Cir. 2014) (affording “considerable deference to a
district court’s determinations regarding the reliability 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 consider when determining sufficient
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. See
United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 189 (4th Cir. 2011)
(defendant has burden of establishing clear improbability).
3
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