Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHARLES RAYMOND WABLE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Charles Raymond Wable’s 180-month prison sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm and witness tampering, rejecting his arguments that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level and abused its discretion by failing to consider nonfrivolous sentencing arguments. Regarding the base offense level calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1), the court applied the plain error standard because Wable raised a new theory on appeal regarding his prior state conviction for cultivating marijuana. The court determined that the West Virginia Uniform Controlled Substances Act is a divisible statute, distinguishing between “manufacturing” and “delivery” offenses under *Mathis v. United States*. While the court previously held in *United States v. Campbell* that delivery offenses under this act do not qualify as controlled substance offenses because they can include attempts, it ruled that manufacturing offenses, which Wable was convicted of, are substantive crimes that do not encompass attempt conduct and therefore properly qualify for the sentencing enhancement. The court found Wable failed to meet his burden of proving plain error given the ambiguity in the state records regarding the specific statute of conviction. On the second issue, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard to review whether the district court considered Wable’s argument for a downward departure based on alleged “chemical assault” by correctional officers. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that the district court explicitly acknowledged all of Wable’s submissions and mitigation arguments during its detailed analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before imposing an upward variance sentence. As a result, Wable’s conviction and sentence remain in effect with no modification.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.