United States of America v. Deion Rashaad Thompson, a/k/a Chucky

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4642
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEION RASHAAD THOMPSON, a/k/a Chucky,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cr-00159-FDW-DCK-5)
Submitted: April 30, 2025 Decided: June 27, 2025
Before AGEE, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Roderick M. Wright, Jr., RODERICK WRIGHT LAW FIRM, PLLC,
Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Deion Rashaad Thompson appeals the district court’s judgment imposing a prison
sentence of 120 months after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), 40 grams or more of
fentanyl, and detectable amounts of cocaine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846;
three counts of distributing fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and
distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). On appeal, Thompson’s attorney has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether there was prosecutorial misconduct
at sentencing but concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Thompson was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
“When asserting a prosecutorial misconduct claim, a defendant bears the burden of
showing (1) that the prosecutors engaged in improper conduct, and (2) that such conduct
prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights so as to deny the defendant a fair trial.” United
States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 689 (4th Cir. 2005). We have reviewed the record and the
arguments in Thompson’s brief, and we conclude he fails to make this showing. We have
also reviewed the entire record for any meritorious appeal issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Thompson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Thompson 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
was served on Thompson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --