UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4698

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIE THOMAS WORSHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00027-HCM-TEM-1)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014

Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Suzanne V.

Katchmar, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States

Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Thomas Worsham pled guilty, without a plea 

agreement, to escape, 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2012) and assaulting a 

federal officer, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)(a), (b) (2012). At 

sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement 

for use of a dangerous weapon, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”), § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (2011), based on the following facts. 

In November 2012, Worsham failed to return after a weekend pass 

from his term of imprisonment. The United States Marshal 

Service began looking for Worsham and ultimately located him in 

February 2013. Deputy U.S. Marshals Stanton and Titus 

approached Worsham’s vehicle and identified themselves as U.S. 

Marshals; Worsham put his car in reverse and attempted to drive 

away. Stanton reached into Worsham’s car to turn off the 

ignition, but Worsham put the car in drive and “floored” the 

accelerator, dragging Stanton alongside the vehicle. Stanton 

sustained significant injuries to his left arm. 

At sentencing, Worsham received a four-level 

enhancement for “use of a dangerous weapon,” among other 

enhancements. Based on a total offense level of 26 and a 

criminal history category of VI, Worsham’s advisory Guidelines 

range was 120 to 150 months’ imprisonment. The court imposed a 

120-month sentence. Worsham noted a timely appeal.
3

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 questioning whether the 

district court erred in applying the dangerous weapon 

enhancement under USSG § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B). Worsham has filed a 

pro se supplemental brief in which he also challenges the 

dangerous weapon enhancement. 

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under 

an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 

Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 

2010). In determining the procedural reasonableness of a 

sentence, we consider whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, 

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated 

Guidelines range may be presumed reasonable by this court. 

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 

2010). 

We have reviewed the record and find that the sentence 

imposed by the district court was both procedurally and 
4

substantively reasonable. A car may qualify as a “dangerous 

weapon” under USSG § 2A2.2. See USSG § 2A2.2 cmt. n.1. Worsham 

argues, however, that there was no evidence that he used the car 

“with the intent to commit bodily injury.” He asserts that he

was merely trying to evade apprehension. However, we find that 

the requisite intent to commit bodily injury can be reasonably 

inferred from Worsham’s actions. See, e.g., United States v. 

Garcia, 34 F.3d 6, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1994) (upholding the 

dangerous weapon enhancement where officer was injured jumping 

out of the way of defendant’s car during attempted getaway). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform Worsham, in writing, of his 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Worsham 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 Worsham. 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