UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4063

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM LASSITER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:23-cr-00088-FL-1)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 24, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief 

Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4063 Doc: 30 Filed: 09/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William Lassiter appeals the 160-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On 

appeal, Lassiter contends that the district court made a clearly erroneous factual finding 

that resulted in the misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines’ robbery cross-reference. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

When considering a Guidelines challenge, “we review the district court’s factual 

findings for clear error.” United States v. Gross, 90 F.4th 715, 720 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). And when those findings are “related to the credibility of a 

witness,” we accord them “even greater deference than other findings.” United States v. 

Ebert, 61 F.4th 394, 406 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 149 (2023). Under the clear 

error standard, we will reverse only if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction 

that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 405 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Lassiter’s conviction stems from an altercation during which he and another man, 

Jesus Salazar, each shot the other. According to Salazar, Lassiter offered to sell him 

marijuana; however, when they met in person, Lassiter attempted to rob Salazar of the drug 

money, leading to an exchange of gunfire. Meanwhile, Lassiter claimed that Salazar was 

the seller, not the buyer. And when Lassiter refused to complete the deal, Salazar 

responded by shooting him. The district court credited Salazar’s version of events, finding 

that Lassiter had intended to rob Salazar at gunpoint. 

On appeal, Lassiter challenges the district court’s finding by identifying evidence 

that allegedly corroborated his account or undermined Salazar’s. But the district court 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4063 Doc: 30 Filed: 09/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

considered this evidence and explained why it did not compel a different result. We do not 

lightly disturb the district court’s resolution of such factual disputes, and we discern no 

basis for doing so here.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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: 24-4063 Doc: 30 Filed: 09/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3