United States v. Michael Thornsbury

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Michael Thornsbury

598 F. App'x 182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2015

Docket14-4498

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 598 F. App'x 182 (United States v. Michael Thornsbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Michael Thornsbury, 598 F. App'x 182 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Thornsbury pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy *183 against civil rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (2012). Prior to sentencing, Thornsbury objected to the description of the relevant conduct in the presentence report (PSR) and to the application of the four-level enhancement for his role as an organizer or leader of the criminal activity. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8B1.1(a) (2013). At sentencing, however, Thornsbury unequivocally stated that he had no objections to the PSR. The district court sentenced Thornsbury to 50 months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Thornsbury attempts to resurrect the arguments he abandoned in the district court. We affirm.

“[Wjaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A party who identifies an issue, and then explicitly withdraws it, has waived the issue,” and the waived issue “is not renewable on appeal, even for plain error.” United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 225, 190 L.Ed.2d 170 (2014).

We conclude that, because Thornsbury abandoned his- objections to the PSR, he has waived appellate review of his challenge to the relevant conduct determination and the propriety of the four-level enhancement for his leadership role. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Thornsbury pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy *183 against civil rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (2012). Prior to sentencing, Thornsbury objected to the description of the relevant conduct in the presentence report (PSR) and to the application of the four-level enhancement for his role as an organizer or leader of the criminal activity. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8B1.1(a) (2013). At sentencing, however, Thornsbury unequivocally stated that he had no objections to the PSR. The district court sentenced Thornsbury to 50 months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Thornsbury attempts to resurrect the arguments he abandoned in the district court. We affirm.

“[Wjaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A party who identifies an issue, and then explicitly withdraws it, has waived the issue,” and the waived issue “is not renewable on appeal, even for plain error.” United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 225, 190 L.Ed.2d 170 (2014).

We conclude that, because Thornsbury abandoned his- objections to the PSR, he has waived appellate review of his challenge to the relevant conduct determination and the propriety of the four-level enhancement for his leadership role. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 F. App'x 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-thornsbury-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack