US v. Danny Grigg, Jr., No. 12-4955 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4955 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANNY KERN GRIGG, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00248-RJC-1) Submitted: May 14, 2013 Decided: May 16, 2013 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Kern Grigg, Jr., appeals the twenty-four-month sentence following of imprisonment his guilty and plea to $225,000 four in restitution counts of wire ordered fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343 and 2 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). On appeal, Grigg s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court s sentence was reasonable and whether the restitution ordered was excessive. Grigg was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he has not filed one. Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel first questions the procedural reasonableness of the twenty-four-month within-Guidelines sentence. In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district court did not commit any significant procedural error, such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). specifically assessed offense. sentence a challenges two-level whether the enhancement district for Here, counsel court Grigg s role properly in the In assessing the district court s application of a enhancement, we review the district court s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 2 463, 474 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A two-level increase to a defendant s base offense level is warranted [i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the charged offense and the offense involved less than five participants. § 3B1.1(c) factors U.S. Sentencing (2010). courts The should Guidelines Guidelines use to Manual identify distinguish the ( USSG ) following between leaders, organizers, managers, supervisors and other participants: the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4; see United States v. Chambers, 985 F.2d 1263, 1269 (4th Cir. 1993) (requiring district court to make specific review, factual we findings conclude that in light above factors). district the of court did applying the two-level role enhancement. court committed no procedural error not Upon err in Thus, the district in imposing Grigg s sentence. Next, counsel questions the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. take In reasonableness, we into circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. considering account the substantive totality of the When, as in this case, the sentence imposed is within the applicable Guidelines range, 3 it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. 445 F.3d 375, omitted). 379 We United States v. Montes-Pineda, (4th Cir. 2006) (internal conclude that Grigg has quotation failed to marks rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded to the within-Guidelines sentence. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Grigg to twenty-four months imprisonment. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 46 (providing standard of review). Counsel also questions whether the restitution award was excessive. Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ( MVRA ), the court shall order . . . that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense. (2006). 18 U.S.C. § 3663A Because the MVRA focuses on the offense of conviction rather than on relevant conduct, the focus of a sentencing court in applying the MVRA must be on the losses to the victim caused by the offense. United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 390-91 (4th (internal Cir. 2010) emphasis omitted). quotation marks, alterations, and Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Grigg to pay $225,000 in restitution to the victims of his offenses. See United States v. Leftwich, 628 F.3d 665, 667 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review). 4 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Grigg, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Grigg requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Grigg. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and conclusions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
