United States v. Adesola Vanzant

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4803
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADESOLA VANZANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00033-IMK-MJA-2)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adesola Vanzant appeals the 30-month sentence imposed upon
his guilty plea to aiding and abetting the possession of stolen
firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(j), 924(a)(2)
(2012). On appeal, Vanzant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the district court erred in denying a sentencing
reduction for his role in the offense, as well as asserting
claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of
trial counsel. Vanzant has not filed a supplemental pro se
brief despite being advised of his right to do so. Finding no
meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
We review for clear error a district court’s determination
that a defendant is not entitled to a mitigating role reduction
at sentencing. United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th
Cir. 2012). The defendant bears the burden of establishing, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to such a
reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2
(2015). Id. at 358-59. In evaluating a defendant’s eligibility
for a § 3B1.2 adjustment, we examine “not just whether the
defendant has done fewer bad acts than his codefendants, but
whether the defendant’s conduct is material or essential to
committing the offense.” Id. at 359 (internal quotation marks
2
omitted). Here, although Vanzant was not a principal player,
the record plainly establishes that his participation was
material. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in denying Vanzant a reduction pursuant to § 3B1.2.
Moreover, contrary to Vanzant’s suggestion in the Anders
brief, the record contains no evidence of prosecutorial
misconduct, and we decline to consider Vanzant’s ineffective
assistance claim on direct appeal because the record does not
conclusively establish his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. See
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir.
2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform Vanzant, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Vanzant requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Vanzant. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4