Court Opinion

ID: 9382268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:25.494767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.102697
License: Public Domain

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

                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 3

        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

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

                                                    3