US v. Timothy Thorne, No. 14-4297 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4297 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JAMES THORNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (6:13-cr-00148-1) Submitted: September 29, 2014 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 2, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, George H. Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy James Thorne pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). sentenced him as a career offender to sentence of 156 months imprisonment. The district court a within-Guidelines Thorne appeals, claiming that the district court should have granted a downward variance based on his drug addiction. We review the We affirm. district court s sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, for reasonableness discretion standard. (2007). Thorne under a deferential Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 challenges on appeal only reasonableness of his sentence. a calculated the See id. at 51. sentence within a abuse-of- properly substantive We presume that advisory Guidelines range is reasonable, and this presumption can only be rebutted by showing against the that the 18 sentence U.S.C. § is 3553(a) unreasonable [(2012)] when measured factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Thorne argues that the district court failed to adequately take into account the motivating effect that his drug addiction had on his crimes and that the court s denial of a downward variance was therefore unreasonable. We disagree. The district court considered Thorne s drug addiction but concluded 2 that his lengthy criminal history warranted a sentence within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range. Thorne has not rebutted the presumption that this conclusion was reasonable in light of the statutory sentencing factors. Accordingly, we hold that the sentence imposed by the district court is substantively reasonable, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
