UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4698
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE THOMAS WORSHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00027-HCM-TEM-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Suzanne V.
Katchmar, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Thomas Worsham pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to escape, 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2012) and assaulting a
federal officer, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)(a), (b) (2012). At
sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement
for use of a dangerous weapon, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”), § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (2011), based on the following facts.
In November 2012, Worsham failed to return after a weekend pass
from his term of imprisonment. The United States Marshal
Service began looking for Worsham and ultimately located him in
February 2013. Deputy U.S. Marshals Stanton and Titus
approached Worsham’s vehicle and identified themselves as U.S.
Marshals; Worsham put his car in reverse and attempted to drive
away. Stanton reached into Worsham’s car to turn off the
ignition, but Worsham put the car in drive and “floored” the
accelerator, dragging Stanton alongside the vehicle. Stanton
sustained significant injuries to his left arm.
At sentencing, Worsham received a four-level
enhancement for “use of a dangerous weapon,” among other
enhancements. Based on a total offense level of 26 and a
criminal history category of VI, Worsham’s advisory Guidelines
range was 120 to 150 months’ imprisonment. The court imposed a
120-month sentence. Worsham noted a timely appeal.
2
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court erred in applying the dangerous weapon
enhancement under USSG § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B). Worsham has filed a
pro se supplemental brief in which he also challenges the
dangerous weapon enhancement.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir.
2010). In determining the procedural reasonableness of a
sentence, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guidelines range may be presumed reasonable by this court.
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.
2010).
We have reviewed the record and find that the sentence
imposed by the district court was both procedurally and
3
substantively reasonable. A car may qualify as a “dangerous
weapon” under USSG § 2A2.2. See USSG § 2A2.2 cmt. n.1. Worsham
argues, however, that there was no evidence that he used the car
“with the intent to commit bodily injury.” He asserts that he
was merely trying to evade apprehension. However, we find that
the requisite intent to commit bodily injury can be reasonably
inferred from Worsham’s actions. See, e.g., United States v.
Garcia, 34 F.3d 6, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1994) (upholding the
dangerous weapon enhancement where officer was injured jumping
out of the way of defendant’s car during attempted getaway).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Worsham, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Worsham 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 Worsham. 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
4