UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4498
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL THORNSBURY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00239-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Tinney, Jr., TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Steven R. Ruby, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Thornsbury pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy against civil rights, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 241 (2012). Prior to sentencing, Thornsbury
objected to the description of the relevant conduct in the
presentence report (PSR) and to the application of the four-
level enhancement for his role as an organizer or leader of the
criminal activity. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3B1.1(a) (2013). At sentencing, however, Thornsbury
unequivocally stated that he had no objections to the PSR. The
district court sentenced Thornsbury to 50 months’ imprisonment,
an upward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range. On appeal, Thornsbury attempts to resurrect the
arguments he abandoned in the district court. We affirm.
“[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment
of a known right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733
(1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A party who
identifies an issue, and then explicitly withdraws it, has
waived the issue,” and the waived issue “is not reviewable on
appeal, even for plain error.” United States v. Robinson, 744
F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 225 (2014).
We conclude that, because Thornsbury abandoned his
objections to the PSR, he has waived appellate review of his
2
challenge to the relevant conduct determination and the
propriety of the four-level enhancement for his leadership role.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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