Court Opinion

ID: 9947008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:05.813789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:44.871795
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4439      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4439

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRANDON ALEXANDER PAYNE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00260-CCE-1)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4439      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Brandon Alexander Payne pleaded guilty to arson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).

        The district court sentenced Payne to 84 months’ imprisonment. Payne appeals his

        sentence, arguing that the district court erred in calculating his offense level under the

        Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

               We review a defendant’s sentence “for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse

        of discretion standard.” United States v. Morehouse, 34 F.4th 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we examine the sentence for procedural

        error, which includes “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines

        range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When considering a challenge to

        the Guidelines calculations, “we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and

        its factual findings for clear error.” Morehouse, 34 F.4th at 387 (cleaned up). In doing so,

        we “interpret the Sentencing Guidelines according to the ordinary rules of statutory

        construction and give a [G]uideline its plain meaning.” United States v. Skinner, 70 F.4th

        219, 230 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 405 (2023).

               Here, the district court calculated Payne’s offense level by applying U.S. Sentencing

        Guidelines Manual § 2K1.4(a)(1)(B) (2023), which provides for a base offense level of 24

        when, inter alia, the offense “involved the destruction or attempted destruction of . . . a

        place of public use.” The application notes to the Guideline provide that the term “place

        of public use” has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2332f(e)(6). USSG § 2K1.4(a)

        cmt.n.1. Section 2332f(e)(6), in turn, defines a place of public use as “any building . . .

        that [is] accessible or open to members of the public, whether continuously, periodically,

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4439      Doc: 20           Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        or occasionally, and encompasses any commercial, business . . . or similar place that is so

        accessible or open to the public.”

               Payne argues that the district court erred in finding that the law office that he set on

        fire met the Guidelines’ definition of a place of public use. We disagree. We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that, under the “plain meaning” of the relevant Guideline,

        see Skinner, 70 F.4th at 230 (internal quotation marks omitted), the law office was a

        business located in a building that was periodically open to the public. The law office is

        unambiguously a place of public use for purposes of the arson Guideline and the district

        court therefore did not err in calculating Payne’s offense level.

               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

                                                      3