United States v. Thornsbury
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4312
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Thornsbury pleaded guilty to felon in possession of ammunition under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
- As part of the plea, he waived his right to appeal any sentence within or below the guideline range for offense level 20.
- During incarceration, Thornsbury cooperated with prosecutors and provided substantial assistance in another case.
- The government moved to reduce his sentence under Rule 35(b); the district court denied the motion.
- Thornsbury challenged the denial on appeal; the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as within the appellate waiver scope.
- The district court had sentenced Thornsbury to 33 months, with three years of supervised release, after calculating offense level 20 and reducing to 17 for acceptance of responsibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is within the court’s jurisdiction to review Rule 35(b) denial | Thornsbury argues the district court based its denial on non-assistance factors. | Government contends no Rule 35(b) issues fall within §3742(a)(1)’s scope to permit review. | Yes; appeal falls under §3742(a)(1) to challenge the method used in denying Rule 35(b) relief. |
| Whether Thornsbury validly waived appellate rights to include Rule 35(b) issues | Waiver could not cover Rule 35(b) because not discussed at allocution. | Waiver was knowing and intelligent and broad enough to cover unforeseen Rule 35(b) issues. | Waiver valid and enforceable; Thornsbury knowingly waived rights to appeal any sentence, including Rule 35(b) rulings. |
| Whether the scope of the waiver includes appeals challenging the denial of Rule 35(b) | Appeal challenges a denial based on legal error, supposedly outside waiver scope. | Waiver covers any appeal of the sentence and grounds under §3742; thus include Rule 35(b) denial. | Yes; the appeal is within the waiver’s broad scope and must be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1995) (holds appeal from denial of Rule 35(b) is appeal of final sentence; allows jurisdiction for certain issues)
- United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2002) (enforces appellate waivers when assessing validity and effect)
- United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (enforces waivers; cites scope and validity analyses)
- United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (discusses knowing and intelligent waiver during Rule 11 colloquy)
- United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493 (4th Cir. 1992) (recognizes enforcement of waivers and limits on challenging sentence errors)
- United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727 (4th Cir. 1994) (discusses scope of waivers and permissible challenges)
- United States v. Emerson, 349 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2003) (analogous reasoning on waiver scope in Rule 35(b) context)
- United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2005) (supports broad waivers covering unforeseen issues)