US v. Vernon Leon Carter, No. 10-5233 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VERNON LEON CARTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00085-JBF-TEM-1) Submitted: May 13, 2011 Decided: June 2, 2011 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Keith Loren Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Kristine E. Wolfe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vernon Leon Carter pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) court s (2006). decision enhancement for On at appeal, he sentencing recklessly challenges to creating apply a the the district two-level substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death while being pursued by police pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2010). Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews the district court s factual findings regarding a sentencing enhancement for clear error and the legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo. States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. United 2010). An individual s acts are considered reckless when he was aware of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of such a nature gross and degree deviation that from to the disregard standard that of care person would exercise in such a situation. n.1, 3C1.2 cmt. n.2. risk that constituted a a reasonable USSG §§ 2A1.4 cmt. We conclude that Carter s conduct during the pursuit, in which he tossed a loaded handgun over a fence in a residential neighborhood with the intent that it will not be found by the police is sufficient increase. 2 to support the two-level Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
