Court Opinion

ID: 9374401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:30.045226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.882188
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4579      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-4579

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ZANNIE JAY LOTHARP,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00448-TDS-1)

        Submitted: February 1, 2023                                  Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Todd A. Smith, SMITH GILES PLLC, Graham, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Nicole R. Dupre, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 20-4579      Doc: 44          Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Zannie Jay Lotharp appeals his 300-month sentence following jury convictions for

        conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(C), 846, and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

        § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). On appeal, Lotharp argues that the district court erred in calculating

        the converted drug weight based on statements of a co-conspirator; finding that his prior

        North Carolina conviction for possession with intent to sell and deliver a controlled

        substance qualified as a predicate conviction for his career offender designation; applying

        a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or

        distributing controlled substances, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(12)

        (2018); and applying a four-level enhancement based on his role in the offense, USSG

        § 3B1.1(a). We affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). First,

        we must determine whether the district court “committed any procedural error, such as

        improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)

        factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Nance, 957

        F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). “In assessing whether a district court properly calculated

        the Guidelines range, including its application of any sentencing enhancements, [we]

        review[] the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4579      Doc: 44          Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        error.” United States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               First, Lotharp argues that the district court erred in considering unreliable statements

        by a co-conspirator in determining the converted drug weight calculation. “[W]e review

        the district court’s factual findings . . . for clear error.”       United States v. Span,

        789 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Congress has

        directed that “[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background,

        character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United

        States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.” 18

        U.S.C. § 3661. And we have held that a sentencing court may consider information that

        has “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy.” United States v. Powell,

        650 F.3d 388, 392 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see USSG

        § 6A1.3(a), p.s. “[C]lear Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent hold[ ] that a

        sentencing court may consider uncharged and acquitted conduct in determining a sentence,

        as long as that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v.

        Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 798-99 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that the district court did not

        clearly err by finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that

        Lotharp’s co-conspirator’s statement recorded by police officers was reliable.

               Next, Lotharp argues that his prior North Carolina conviction for possession with

        intent to sell and deliver cocaine does not qualify as a predicate for the career offender

        enhancement because the North Carolina statute defines cocaine more broadly than the

        federal statute. However, Lotharp acknowledges his claim is foreclosed by United States v.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4579      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        Ward, 972 F.3d 365, 372 (4th Cir. 2020). One panel of this court cannot override a

        precedent set by another panel. See World Fuel Servs. Trading, DMCC v. Hebei Prince

        Shipping Co., 783 F.3d 507, 523-24 (4th Cir. 2015).

               Lotharp also challenges the district court’s imposition of a two-level enhancement

        for “maintain[ing] a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled

        substance,” under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12). In assessing a Guidelines enhancement, we

        review findings of fact for clear error and legal decisions de novo. United States v. Fluker,

        891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir. 2018). “Among the factors the court should consider in

        determining whether the defendant ‘maintained’ the premises are (A) whether the

        defendant held a possessory interest in (e.g., owned or rented) the premises and (B) the

        extent to which the defendant controlled access to, or activities at, the premises.” USSG

        § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. A defendant’s “lack of possessory interest in the [premises] is not

        dispositive.” United States v. Barnett, 48 F.4th 216, 220 (4th Cir. 2022), petition for cert.

        filed, No. 22-6414 (U.S. Dec. 29, 2022). “Factors other than possessory interest are also

        relevant, including the defendant’s control over the premises or the activities occurring

        there.” Id. Additional relevant factors include “the defendant’s ready access to the

        premises, staying overnight, the defendant’s frequency at the premises, and the defendant’s

        participation in the drug activity there.” Id. at 220-21. Because Lotharp stored drugs at

        the premises, repeatedly sold drugs from the premises, controlled access to the premises,

        and was near the premises when police executed the search warrant, we conclude that the

        district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4579      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

               Lotharp also challenges the district court’s application of the leadership

        enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(a). The district court considers several factors in

        determining whether a role enhancement should be applied, including the exercise of

        decision-making authority, the degree of authority exercised, the recruitment of

        accomplices, and the extent to which the defendant planned or organized the offense.

        United States v. Burnley, 988 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2021). This court reviews for clear

        error application of the enhancement for being an organizer or leader of a conspiracy.

        United States v. Steffen, 741 F.3d 411, 415 (4th Cir. 2013). Because Lotharp had decision-

        making authority over when to buy drugs, controlled the sales, stored the drugs, recruited

        people to join the conspiracy, and exerted control over other members in the conspiracy,

        the district court did not clearly err in applying the leadership enhancement. See United

        States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003).

               Finally, Lotharp, who is represented by counsel, seeks to file a pro se supplemental

        brief. However, “an appellant who is represented by counsel has no right to file pro se

        briefs or raise additional substantive issues in an appeal.” United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d

        667, 682 (4th Cir. 2018). We therefore deny Lotharp’s motions for leave to file a

        supplemental pro se brief.

               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

                                                     5