Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 14-4878
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00165-LMB-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, Antowan Thorne was convicted of
the lesser-included charge of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams
or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846
(2012).
The
district
imprisonment,
which
court
was
sentenced
in
the
Thorne
middle
of
to
300
his
months
Sentencing
See
This appeal
timely followed.
On appeal, Thorne raises four issues for our consideration.
He first challenges the sufficiency of the Governments evidence
underlying
his
conviction
and
takes
issue
with
the
district
next
three
Guidelines range.
issues
relate
to
the
computation
of
his
his
first
Fed.
contends
that
R.
P.
conclusion of trial.
Crim.
the
29
district
motions
court
during
erred
and
at
in
the
743 F.3d 917, 921 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689
(2014).
The
record,
when
government,
to
viewed
support
in
the
the
light
most
conviction.
favorable
United
to
the
States
v.
omitted).
reasonable
Substantial
finder
of
fact
evidence
could
is
accept
evidence
as
that
adequate
and
reasonable
doubt.
alteration omitted).
the
reviewing
evidence
and
presented[.]
omitted).
court,
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
and
resolves
weighs
any
the
conflicts
credibility
in
the
of
the
evidence
United
States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
To convict Thorne of conspiracy to distribute heroin, the
Government had to prove the following essential elements:
(1)
these
Governments
standards
evidence
Thornes conviction.
in
was
mind,
more
we
than
conclude
sufficient
that
to
the
support
heroin, and the witness sold between 100 and 150 grams of heroin
obtained
from
Thorne.
Their
relationship
was
based
on
the
common goal of selling more drugs and thus making more money.
Thorne nonetheless contends that the Government failed to
demonstrate a conspiracy because there was no direct evidence of
an agreement between Thorne and any co-conspirator; none of the
purchasers further sold the heroin they obtained from Thorne;
and there was no testimony establishing profit-sharing.
contends
that
the
witness
was,
at
the
most,
simply
Thorne
another
customer of Thornes.
Thornes
arguments
fail
on
this
record.
Individuals
in
writing,
and
we
have
long
recognized
that,
the
government
can
prove
the
existence
than
circumstantial
of
conspiracy
by
evidence;
the
witness
testified,
Edmonds, 679 F.3d 169, 174 (4th Cir.) ([A]ny agreement made in
addition to or beyond the bare buy-sell transaction may be taken
to
infer
joint
enterprise
between
the
parties
beyond
the
the
lack
of
evidence
of
profit-sharing
is
not
attempts
to
undermine
the
witnesss
credibility
v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 343 (4th Cir. 2013) (compiling Fourth
Circuit precedent for the proposition that, although the factfinder
can
consider
witnesss
status
as
drug
user
or
And, as the
testimony
from
two
other
witnesses
who
regularly
and
review
outside,
or
any
criminal
significantly
sentence,
outside
the
whether
inside,
Guidelines
range,
just
for
274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38,
46,
51
(2007).
In
first
evaluating
procedural
the
parties
an
opportunity
to
argue
for
an
appropriate
old
at
the
time
of
the
instant
offense,
the
instant
of
violence.
USSG
4B1.1(a).
prior
conviction
USSG
conclusion
that
prior
conviction
qualifies
as
crime
of
violence.
Cir. 2012).
Thorne only contests the viability of his second career
offender predicate, to wit:
Thorne pled
his
objection
that
this
to
statute
the
of
use
of
this
conviction
was
predicate,
Thorne
divisible,
under
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), and thus that
the court needed to utilize the modified categorical approach to
determine
if
Thornes
conviction
qualified
as
crime
of
violence.
by
recommendation,
revocation
which
the
citing
in
proceeding
the
magistrate
Thornes
in
magistrate
unrelated
another
judge
federal
recommended
judges
report
supervised
and
release
district
court,
finding
that
in
this
appeal,
Thorne
claims
the
district
court
committed
As we have explained,
that
magistrate
the
district
judges
report
court
in
the
erred
in
unrelated
We thus
considering
the
revocation
case
magistrate
accompanying
judges
the
plea
report:
that
agreement
established
the
factual
proffer
that
Thornes
force
conviction
against
under
D.C.
another
Code
was
an
element
22-722(a)(2)(A)
of
even
Thornes
if
that
Thorne
does
not
challenge
the
general
approach
or
reliance
on
this
Shepard-approved
F.3d 119, 12324 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining the harmless error
analysis
employed
when
evaluating
claims
of
procedural
sentencing error).
Our disposition of this issue effectively moots Thornes
challenges to the two-level firearm enhancement and the twolevel obstruction of justice adjustment.
10
affected
Thornes
sentence.
Accordingly,
we
find
We
and
materials
legal
before
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
11