US v. Leonard Christopher Brown, No. 11-4469 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Dismissed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEONARD CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cr-00424-DCN-1) Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leonard Christopher Brown entered a plea, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) (2006). sentence of seventy-two months imprisonment. sentence, contending that the district He received a Brown appeals his court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13 (2010) based on his diminished capacity. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss the appeal. The downward if district (1) the court has defendant the discretion committed the to offense depart while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity; and (2) the significantly reduced mental capacity substantially to the commission of the offense. contributed USSG § 5K2.13. However, [w]e lack the authority to review a sentencing court s denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so. United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). Our review of the record discloses that the district court did not fail to recognize its authority to depart. Thus, Brown s claim is not reviewable on appeal. 2 We therefore dismiss the appeal. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
