0% found this document useful (0 votes)
53 views4 pagesUnited States v. Gregory Wall, 4th Cir. (2015)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Gregory Wall's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana. Wall pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment, below the Guidelines range. The Court found no error in the district court's determination of drug quantity or denial of a reduction for minimal role. The appellate waiver in Wall's plea agreement was valid but not enforced by the Government.
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCopyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
53 views4 pagesUnited States v. Gregory Wall, 4th Cir. (2015)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Gregory Wall's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana. Wall pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment, below the Guidelines range. The Court found no error in the district court's determination of drug quantity or denial of a reduction for minimal role. The appellate waiver in Wall's plea agreement was valid but not enforced by the Government.
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCopyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4765
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY WALL, a/k/a Yomi,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00337-RJC-14)
Submitted:
July 21, 2015
Decided:
July 23, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick M. Wright, Jr., WRIGHT LAW FIRM OF CHARLOTTE, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant; Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory
Wall
pled
guilty,
pursuant
to
written
plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at
least 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 846 (2012), and was
sentenced
to
imprisonment.
below-Guidelines
sentence
of
46
months
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues:
(1) whether the appellate waiver contained in Walls plea
agreement is valid, (2) whether the district court erred in holding
Wall responsible for between 700 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana
for sentencing purposes, and (3) whether the district court erred
in denying Walls request for a four-level reduction for being a
minimal participant, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3B1.2(a)
(2013).
Although
informed
of
his
right
supplemental brief, Wall has not done so.
to
file
pro
se
We affirm.
Because the Government has not moved to dismiss Walls appeal,
we need not address his challenges to the validity of the appellate
waiver provision in his plea agreement.
See United States v.
Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000).
Next, counsel questions whether the district court erred in
holding Wall responsible for between 700 and 1000 kilograms of
marijuana. We review a district courts factual findings regarding
drug quantity for clear error.
United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d
2
415 (4th Cir. 2002).
The Government is required to prove a
defendants drug quantity under the Guidelines by a preponderance
of the evidence, id. at 422, but the defendant bears the burden to
demonstrate that the information contained in the presentence
report is unreliable or inaccurate.
F.3d 456, 46162 (4th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Kiulin, 360
Our review of the record leads
us to conclude that Wall did not meet his burden of demonstrating
that the drug quantity calculation was based on unreliable or
inaccurate information.
Accordingly, we find no clear error in
the district courts determination that Wall was responsible for
between 700 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana.
Finally, counsel questions whether the district court erred
in denying Walls request for a four-level reduction for being a
minimal participant.
A defendant seeking a downward adjustment
for his or her minimal role in the offense must prove that he or
she is entitled to it by a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999).
See
We
review the district courts determination on this issue for clear
error.
United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir.
1989).
We have reviewed the record and find that the district
courts denial of Walls request for a reduction based on his role
in the offense was not clearly erroneous.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed these issues and
the record in this case, and have found no meritorious issues for
3
appeal.
We therefore affirm Walls conviction and sentence.
This
court requires that counsel inform Wall, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.
If Wall 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.
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Wall.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
