US v. Jeronza Thorne, No. 08-4606 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JERONZA THORNE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00448-RJC-1) Submitted: February 11, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Steven Slawinski, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeronza Thorne pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in district violation court of 18 sentenced U.S.C. Thorne § 922(g)(1) to (2006). seventy-two imprisonment, and Thorne timely noted his appeal. counsel for California, Thorne 386 has U.S. filed 738 potential errors for review. * Thorne first a brief (1967), in pursuant which The months On appeal, to he Anders raises v. two Finding no error, we affirm. questions whether the district court erred in counting his two prior felony sentences separately for guidelines calculation purposes consolidated for sentencing. September and October 2000 because the offenses were The record reveals that Thorne s offenses were separated from June 5, 2001 offenses by his arrest on January 7, 2001. his Prior sentences are always counted separately if the sentences were imposed arrest. (2007). for offenses U.S. that Sentencing were separated Guidelines by Manual an intervening § 4A1.2(a)(1) Accordingly, the district court did not err in counting Thorne s offenses separately in calculating his criminal history * Thorne was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He has elected not to do so. The Government declined to file a brief. 2 category. See United States v. Huggins, 191 F.3d 532, 539 (4th Cir. 1999). Thorne next questions whether the district court erred in enhancing his base offense level by two levels because the firearm was stolen. Thorne claims he was unaware that the firearm was stolen. Even if true, however, this argument offers Thorne no 2K2.1(b)(4), stolen comfort which firearm, as Application provides contains the no Note two-level scienter 8(B) to enhancement requirement; it USSG for § a applies even if the defendant did not know or have reason to know the firearm was stolen. USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4); see, States v. Martin, 339 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2003). e.g., United Therefore, the district court did not err in enhancing Thorne s base offense level two levels. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Thorne s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Thorne, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Thorne requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Thorne. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
