US v. Willie Worsham, No. 13-4698 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4698 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE THOMAS WORSHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00027-HCM-TEM-1) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Thomas Worsham pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to escape, 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2012) and assaulting a federal officer, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)(a), (b) (2012). At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ), § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (2011), based on the following facts. In November 2012, Worsham failed to return after a weekend pass from his term of imprisonment. The United States Marshal Service began looking for Worsham and ultimately located him in February 2013. Deputy U.S. Marshals Stanton and Titus approached Worsham s vehicle and identified themselves as U.S. Marshals; Worsham put his car in reverse and attempted to drive away. Stanton reached into Worsham s car to turn off the ignition, but Worsham put the car in drive and floored the accelerator, dragging Stanton alongside the vehicle. Stanton sustained significant injuries to his left arm. At enhancement enhancements. sentencing, for use Based Worsham of on a a received dangerous total a weapon, offense level four-level among of 26 other and a criminal history category of VI, Worsham s advisory Guidelines range was 120 to 150 months imprisonment. 120-month sentence. The court imposed a Worsham noted a timely appeal. 2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious district grounds court for appeal erred in but questioning applying the whether dangerous the weapon enhancement under USSG § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B). Worsham has filed a pro also se supplemental brief in which he challenges the dangerous weapon enhancement. This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the procedural and Gall v. United States, 552 This review requires consideration of both substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In sentence, determining consider we calculated the whether the Guidelines as defendant s advisory, procedural the district Guidelines considered reasonableness the court range, 18 of properly treated U.S.C. a § the 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. U.S. at 51. Guidelines Gall, 552 A sentence imposed within the properly calculated range may be presumed reasonable by this court. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and find that the sentence imposed by the district court 3 was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. A car may qualify as a dangerous weapon under USSG § 2A2.2. See USSG § 2A2.2 cmt. n.1. Worsham argues, however, that there was no evidence that he used the car with the intent to commit bodily injury. was merely trying to evade apprehension. He asserts that he However, we find that the requisite intent to commit bodily injury can be reasonably inferred from Worsham s actions. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, Cir. 34 F.3d 6, 10-11 (1st 1994) (upholding the dangerous weapon enhancement where officer was injured jumping out of the way of defendant s car during attempted getaway). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and Accordingly, have we found affirm no the meritorious district issues court s for appeal. judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Worsham, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Worsham requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Worsham. 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 4
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.
