United States v. Thomas Snead, Jr.
664 F. App'x 270
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Thomas L. Snead Jr. pled guilty, via written plea agreement, to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 846).
- District court sentenced Snead to 160 months’ imprisonment.
- Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief certifying no meritorious appeal but raising two procedural questions: (1) alleged error in adding 2 criminal-history points for committing the offense while on probation; (2) failure to credit Snead in the judgment for pretrial detention.
- Snead did not object in district court to the presentence report (PSR) findings about when co-defendant began procuring pseudoephedrine or to the PSR’s probation dates.
- The appeal is reviewed for plain error because no objections were raised below.
- Court affirms the sentence, holding no procedural error: PSR findings may be adopted absent objection, and pretrial credit calculation is an executive/administrative matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2 criminal-history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) were improperly applied for offense committed while on probation | Snead argues points improper because probation had ended in June 2012 | Government relies on PSR factual findings that co-defendant began purchasing pseudoephedrine for Snead in 2012; district court may adopt PSR when uncontested | Affirmed: district court properly relied on PSR; Snead’s failure to object meant PSR facts could be accepted |
| Whether district court erred by not crediting pretrial detention in the judgment | Snead argues he should have received credit in the judgment | Government points out credit calculation is the Attorney General’s obligation and is administratively handled; habeas/administrative remedies available | Affirmed: court has no duty to calculate credit in the judgment; remedy lies through administrative channels or § 2241 |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (contemptible-appeal procedure when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentencing)
- United States v. Moore, 810 F.3d 932 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157 (4th Cir.) (district court may adopt uncontested PSR facts absent showing of unreliability)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (AG obligation to compute prior custody credit)
- United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488 (4th Cir.) (challenge to credit calculation via administrative process and § 2241)