US v. Ornis Leger, No. 13-4736 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4736 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ORNIS LEGER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00206-MOC-DSC-4) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter C. Anderson, BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ornis Leger appeals from the criminal judgment imposed after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Leger contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the two counts. He denying also him sentencing. A the alleges benefit that of the the district safety court valve erred in provision at Finding no error, we affirm. jury verdict must by sustained when there is substantial evidence in the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support the conviction. United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d (internal quotation marks omitted). evidence that a reasonable finder 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011) Substantial evidence is of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. quotation marks omitted). Id. (alteration and internal Our review of the record persuades us that substantial evidence supports Leger s convictions. Leger next contends that the district court improperly denied him the benefit of the safety valve, which permits a sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines regard to any statutory minimum sentence. range without To benefit from the safety valve, the defendant bears the burden of showing that he 2 meets the five requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2012) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(a) (2012). United States v. Henry, 673 F.3d 285, 292-95 (4th Cir. 2012). We review the district court s determination concerning eligibility for safety valve relief for clear error. Id. at 292. It is requirements. undisputed that Leger met the first The issue before us is whether he also met the fifth requirement of truthful and complete disclosure. U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5), requirement, information other the he crimes four USSG § defendant has about that 5C1.2(a)(5). must the of satisfy this disclose truthfully offense constitute To all conviction relevant See 18 and conduct. any United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 610 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 627 (2012). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Leger the benefit of the safety valve. Leger, who claimed that he thought he was unloading furniture and not marijuana, was found not to be credible by the jury and the sentencing judge. He was stopped by DEA agents with approximately 750 pounds of marijuana in his van after assisting in the unloading of the shipment with his co-conspirators. Although Leger consistently stated that he thought the shipment was to be furniture; consistency is not the sole indicator of 3 truthful disclosure. requirement that the Leger therefore defendant failed truthfully to satisfy the disclose all information he has about the offense and relevant conduct. See USSG § 5C1.2(a)(5); Aidoo, 670 F.3d at 610. We therefore affirm. 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 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.
