US v. Vaughn Grove, No. 10-5072 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5072 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. VAUGHN RAMONE GROVE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cr-00263-1) Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: June 17, 2011 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vaughn Ramone Grove pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006). The district court sentenced Grove to 151 months in prison, and Grove now appeals. We affirm. On court erred appeal, in Grove applying first an contends that enhancement the pursuant Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2009). increase is authorized under § 2D1.1(b)(1) if district to U.S. A two-level the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon during the offense. Application Note enhancement should unless is 3 to applied if § 2D1.1 the explains weapon that was the present, it clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. district court s factual finding that Grove be possessed The a dangerous weapon during the offense is reviewed for clear error. United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001). The government need show only that the weapon was possessed during the relevant illegal drug activity. Id. [P]roof of constructive possession of the dangerous weapon is sufficient, and the Government is entitled evidence to carry its burden. to rely on circumstantial United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 629 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the firearm was found in close sum proximity to a large 2 of cash and was readily accessible, we readily conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying the two-level enhancement. Grove unreasonable. applying an next contends that his 151-month sentence is This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the procedural sentence for significant error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. required Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. to robotically tick The district court is not through § 3553(a) s every subsection. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. need not be elaborate or This individualized assessment lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted). 3 A reviewing court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. court presumes calculated on appeal advisory Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. that Guidelines a sentence range a properly reasonable. is within This United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within Guidelines sentence). After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Grove because his sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
