US v. Adesola Vanzant, No. 15-4803 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4803 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ADESOLA VANZANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00033-IMK-MJA-2) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 1, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adesola Vanzant appeals the 30-month sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to aiding and abetting the possession of stolen firearms, (2012). in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(j), 924(a)(2) On appeal, Vanzant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are whether no meritorious the district grounds court for erred appeal in but denying questioning a sentencing reduction for his role in the offense, as well as asserting claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Vanzant has not filed a supplemental pro se brief despite being advised of his right to do so. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. We review for clear error a district court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to a mitigating role reduction at sentencing. Cir. 2012). United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th The defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to such a reduction (2015). for a under U.S. Id. at 358-59. § 3B1.2 Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 In evaluating a defendant’s eligibility adjustment, we examine “not just whether the defendant has done fewer bad acts than his codefendants, but whether the defendant’s committing the offense.” conduct is material or essential to Id. at 359 (internal quotation marks 2 omitted). the Here, although Vanzant was not a principal player, record material. plainly establishes that his participation was Thus, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Vanzant a reduction pursuant to § 3B1.2. Moreover, contrary to Vanzant’s suggestion in the Anders brief, the misconduct, record and we contains decline no to evidence consider of prosecutorial Vanzant’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal because the record does not conclusively establish his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th See Cir. 2010). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Vanzant, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Vanzant 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 Vanzant. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 3 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.
