US v. Charles Cadle, No. 11-5203 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES STEPHEN CADLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00083-1) Submitted: May 16, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher D. Lefler, LEFLER & BOGGS, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Stephen Cadle pled guilty to an information charging him with aiding and abetting the distribution of oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). In his plea agreement, Cadle waived his right to appeal a sentence within the Guidelines range, but reserved the right to challenge the district court s determination of his role in the offense if the issue was preserved by an objection. Cadle was sentenced to a term of fifty-seven months imprisonment, the bottom of his sentencing Guidelines range. Cadle contends on appeal that the district court clearly erred in finding that his role in the offense was that of an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor warranting a two-level adjustment Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2011). that his sentence unreasonable. was procedurally under U.S. He also claims and substantively We affirm in part and dismiss in part. During a drug investigation in 2009, a confidential informant bought oxycodone on three occasions at Cadle s home. The first time, Cadle told the informant Chrystal, would conduct the transaction. that his daughter, Chrystal asked another person, Kenneth Cline, to go next door and get the drugs. She then handed the drugs to the informant and took the money. On the next two occasions, the informant went to Cadle s house and bought oxycodone from Chrystal 2 each time. After a search warrant was executed at Cadle s home in October 2009, and various prescription medications were located in a safe, Cadle gave a statement prescription to investigators. medications from usually through Chrystal. other He people to give a bought resold and he them, Cadle s wife also gave a statement, which corroborated her husband s account. refused said statement, but in Chrystal initially 2011 she spoke to investigators and told them that she had sold oxycodone for her father, and for Kenneth Cline, for about a year. She said Cadle paid her in oxycodone pills, to which she was addicted. The district court s determination that a defendant qualifies as a leader under USSG § 3B.1.1(c) is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. F.3d 179, 184 (4th Cir. 2009). adjustment if he was an United States v. Cameron, 573 A defendant merits a two-level organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity that did not involve five or more participants § 3B1.1(c). have been and was not otherwise extensive. USSG To qualify for the adjustment, the defendant must an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of people. United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 226 (4th Cir. 2002). Leadership over only one other participant sufficient as long as there is some control exercised. States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003). 3 is United Here, Cadle contends that the evidence showed only that he obtained drugs and allowed his daughter to sell them, but not that he exercised decision-making authority or control over other participants. However, the district court had before it statements from three participants in the sale of drugs from Cadle s home, which established that Cadle directed Chrystal to sell oxycodone and other drugs to customers and kept all the proceeds, paying Chrystal in pills to support her addiction. On this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the aggravated role adjustment was appropriate. Cadle next maintains that the district court procedurally erred when it applied the § 3B1.1(c) adjustment and also that his within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to fulfill the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). See Gall v. United States, of Cadle does not 552 U.S. address 38, the 51 (2007) waiver (standard provision in review). his plea However, the government seeks to enforce the waiver. 1 agreement. A waiver of appeal rights is reviewed de novo, and is enforceable if it is knowing and voluntary, and the issue raised on appeal is within the scope of the waiver. 1 United States v. The government concedes that Cadle reserved the right to appeal the role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1(c). 4 Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). Generally, a waiver is valid if the district court questions the defendant about the waiver during the guilty plea hearing and the record demonstrates that the defendant understood the significance of the waiver. Id. Here, the district court asked Cadle whether he understood that he was agreeing to give up his right to appeal his sentence on any ground whatsoever, as long as the sentence was within answered that he did. his waiver. or below the Guidelines range. Cadle does not challenge the Cadle validity of We conclude that the waiver is enforceable. 2 We therefore affirm the district court s judgment, but dismiss that portion of the appeal in which Cadle seeks review of the reasonableness of his sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 2 We note that, even if the waiver were not enforceable, Cadle has not shown that his sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable. The court did not err procedurally in calculating Cadle s Guidelines range. Moreover, an appellate court may treat a sentence within a correctly calculated Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346 (2007). Although the presumption is rebuttable, see United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010), Cadle has not rebutted the presumption. 5
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.
