United States v. Eric Glass

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-4057
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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