UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC MATTHEW GLASS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cr-00002-JPJ-PMS-3)

Submitted: March 8, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Dana R. Cormier, DANA R. CORMIER, PLC, Staunton, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4057 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Eric Matthew Glass pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. The 

district court sentenced Glass to 168 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Glass challenges 

the district court’s application of the leadership role enhancement pursuant to U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2021). We affirm. 

“In reviewing whether a sentencing court properly calculated the [Sentencing]

Guidelines range, we review the court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal 

conclusions de novo.” United States v. Shephard, 892 F.3d 666, 670 (4th Cir. 2018). “We 

will conclude that the ruling of the district court is clearly erroneous only when, after 

reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 

has been committed.” United States v. Steffen, 741 F.3d 411, 415 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The Government bears the burden of demonstrating that a 

sentencing enhancement should be applied, and the court determines whether the 

enhancement applies by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 414-15. “In conducting 

this review for clear error, we are not confined to the district court’s analysis but may affirm 

the court’s ruling on any evidence appearing in the record.” Id. at 415. 

Under the Guidelines, a district court should apply a two-level upward adjustment 

in offense level if the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in 

criminal activity that did not involve five or more persons or was otherwise not extensive. 

USSG § 3B1.1(c). In determining whether to apply an enhancement in offense level for a 

defendant’s leadership role, a court should consider: the defendant’s exercise of 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4057 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

decision-making authority, the nature of his participation in the offense, recruitment of 

others, any claimed right to a larger share of the profits, the degree of participation in 

planning of the offense, the nature and scope of the offense, and the degree of control and 

authority exercised over others. United States v. Agyekum, 846 F.3d 744, 752 (4th Cir. 

2017) (citing USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4). We have held that the leadership role enhancement 

applies only if the defendant managed or supervised at least one other participant in the 

criminal enterprise, rather than managing property. Steffen, 741 F.3d at 415. We conclude 

that the district court did not clearly err in applying the leadership role enhancement 

because Glass facilitated the drug sales, reallocated an amount of methamphetamine to be 

sold from one customer to another, and directed his codefendant regarding payment to the 

drug suppliers. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4057 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 3