US v. Michael Compton, No. 12-4455 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY COMPTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00365-TDS-1) Submitted: November 19, 2012 Decided: November 21, 2012 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In accordance with a written plea agreement, Michael Compton pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) sentenced to 110 months in prison. sentence, raising one issue. (2006). He was Compton now appeals his We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We first determine whether the district court Id. correctly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the applicable presented by § 3553(a) the selected sentence. (4th Cir. 2010). factors, parties, and analyzed sufficiently the arguments explained the United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 575. Compton unreasonable Sentencing contends because Guidelines the that his kidnapping sentence cross §§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), incorrectly applied to him. is procedurally reference, 2X1.1(a) (2011), U.S. was The cross reference applies [i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with the commission . . . of another offense. 2 USSG § 2K2.1(c)(1). Compton argues that another offense includes only conduct that violates federal law. The conduct in this case -- a home invasion in which the occupants were bound with duct tape, robbed, asserts, constitute statute. and Instead, Carolina state law. federal offense, a locked in a closet -- does violation of the conduct is kidnapping the federal not, he kidnapping under North Accordingly, because the conduct is not a the cross reference should not have been applied. We reject this argument. First, the commentary to USSG § 2K2.1 states that [a]nother offense . . . means any federal, state, or local offense, other than the explosive or firearms whether possession a obtained. or criminal trafficking charge was offense, brought, USSG § 2K2.1, cmt. n.14(C). or regardless a of conviction Additionally, we have held that the cross reference in USSG § 2K2.1 applies to conduct amounting to a violation of state law. United States v. Carroll, 3 F.3d 98, 103 (4th Cir. 1993). We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.