tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-94195072024-03-12T23:46:43.040-04:00Fourth Circuit BlogCase summaries and analysis from Federal Defender Offices located in the Fourth Circuit (WV, VA, MD, NC, SC)Paul M. Rashkindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02097192160938820781noreply@blogger.comBlogger1114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-74234905406271719672024-03-01T08:24:00.002-05:002024-03-01T08:24:06.510-05:00Defendant “Resided” in West Virginia So As to Require SORNA Registration<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224595.P.pdf"><b><i>US
v. Kokinda</i></b></a><b>:</b> Due to a pair of state convictions in the 2000s,
Kokinda was required to register as a sex offender. He effectively disappeared,
and ceased registering. He resurfaced in Elkins, West Virginia, in September
2019, where he was charged with sexual abuse in the third degree after grabbing
the buttocks of a girl while pushing her on a swing in a public park. In
addition, images of child pornography were found on his phone. Kokinda was
charged with failing to register under SORNA. He went to trial, where the
Government produced evidence that Kokinda had been in the Elkins area for about
a month, staying at various campsites. Kokinda’s defense was that while he had
offenses that would require him to register with SORNA, he never “resided” in
West Virginia and triggered the registration requirement. He was convicted and
sentenced to 63 months in prison, the top of an advisory Guideline range
enhanced for committing a sex offense against a minor while failing to
register.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Kokinda’s
conviction and sentence. As to his conviction, Kokinda’s main argument was that
the district court had erred in instructing the jury on the definition of
“resides” and “habitually lives,” particularly in taking the definition of the
latter term from the SORNA guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General. The
court rejected that argument, holding that the guidelines are part of a civil
regulatory scheme and entitled to <i>Chevron</i> deference in defining the
ambiguous term “habitually lives.” The court also held that there was no
conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>Nichols</i>. As to Kokinda’s
sentence, the court found no clear error in the district court’s determination
that he had committed a sex offense against a minor, either by grabbing her
buttocks or by possessing child pornography.</span>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-7854274047177466322024-03-01T08:23:00.003-05:002024-03-01T08:23:44.097-05:00Judges Express Concern Over Johnson VICAR Analysis<p> <a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/226285.P.pdf"><b><i>US
v. Kinard</i></b></a><b>:</b> Last year, in <a href="https://circuit4.blogspot.com/2023/12/vicar-assault-with-deadly-weapon-is.html"><i>United
States v. Thomas</i></a>, the Fourth Circuit held that assault with a deadly
weapon under the violent crimes in aid of racketeering statute (VICAR) was a
crime of violence. In doing so, the court held that because the federal VICAR
offense itself had, as an element, a requirement that the offense was done for
purposes related to the racketeering enterprise that it required a “deliberate
choice” that satisfied the <i>mens rea</i> requirement for the crime of violence
analysis, even when the underlying state offense could be committed recklessly.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kinard raised the same issue with a related state offense
and the Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction, based on <i>Thomas</i>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Judge Keenan, joined by Judge Heytens, concurred in the
result, agreeing that the panel was bound by <i>Thomas</i>, “which issued after
briefing and argument in this case.” Regardless, she had “concerns with the
resulting analysis,” arguing that looking to the <i>mens rea</i> of the
racketeering element of the offense is incorrect and out of step with the
approaches of other circuits. As she explained, “the mens rea required under
the force clause thus differs from the mens rea required under the purpose
element in that the latter does not require a showing that the defendant
knowingly directed force at a target,” as required by the Supreme Court’s
decision in <i>Borden</i>.</p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-67204670953077648992024-03-01T08:22:00.009-05:002024-03-01T08:22:40.739-05:00Court Approves Broad Search Warrants for Facebook Data<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224656.P.pdf"><b><i>US
v. Zelaya-Veliz</i></b></a><b>:</b> Zelaya-Veliz, along with five codefendants,
were involved in a conspiracy to traffic minor girls for prostitution in and
around Virginia and Maryland. As part of the investigation into their operation
(after one of the girls managed to escape), authorities sought a series of
search warrants – four in total – for Facebook data related to Zelaya-Veliz and
his codefendants, other coconspirators, and the trafficked victims. Two of the
four warrants had no temporal limitation to the data that Facebook was required
to disclose and all allowed authorities to search a wide swath of information,
although they allowed only for a seizure of information related to specific
federal crimes under investigation. Motions to suppress the information from
those warrants were denied. Zelaya-Veliz and his codefendants were convicted of
conspiracy and substantive sex trafficking counts at trial and sentenced to
between 180 and 300 months in prison.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the defendants’
convictions. Their primary argument was that the district court erred by
denying their motions to suppress the evidence from the Facebook warrants
(which the court notes was substantial and critical to the Government’s case at
trial). Initially, the court concluded that the defendants could challenge all
the warrants other than the first, noting that none of their data or accounts
were involved with the first warrant. In doing so, the court made clear that
Facebook (or other social media) account holders have Fourth Amendment standing
to challenge searches of those accounts. Turning to the merits of the
defendants’ challenges, the court first held that there was sufficient probable
cause for issuance of the warrants. Next, the court held that they were
sufficiently limited both temporally (for two of the remaining warrants) and in
terms of their scope (for all of them). As to the latter, the court held that
the two-step process employe here – where investigators were allowed to search
essentially all of a Facebook account but only seize that evidence related to
specific federal crimes – resulted in a sufficiently particularized warrant. As
to the former, for the warrant that had no temporal limitations at all, the
court held that was problematic, but that ultimately the search was saved by
good faith.</span></p>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-91574082993310747762024-03-01T08:22:00.004-05:002024-03-01T08:22:17.956-05:00Defendant Cannot Take Interlocutory Appeal from Denial of Motion for Resentencing Without His Presence<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/234055.P.pdf"><b><i>US
v. Castellon</i></b></a><b>: </b>In 2022, the Fourth Circuit vacated
Castellon’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the parties agreed to the newly calculated Guideline range, that 210
months was the appropriate sentence, and that a resentencing hearing was not
required. The district court “rejected the parties’ claim that Castellon could
be resentenced in absentia, concluding that the only situation covered by the
“voluntarily absent” language in Rule 43(c)(1)(B) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
was when the defendant fled proceedings and refused to submit themselves to the
court. While noting that Castellon had “asserted valid reasons for sentencing
in absentia, he hadn’t provided the court authority to do so.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Castellon sought an interlocutory appeal to the Fourth
Circuit to resolve the issue. While recognizing that the court’s “precedent
appears to support their position” that a defendant can waive their presence at
sentencing, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction over an interlocutory
appeal on the matter. The court held that it did not fall under the collateral
order doctrine because Castellon failed to identify “an important right
implicated by the orders denying him the opportunity to be resentenced in
absentia.” Castellon’s interest did not rise to the level of other issues that
defendants can raise in an interlocutory appeal (such as double jeopardy
claims), with the court concluding that “the district court’s error in
interpreting a rule governing sentencing procedure isn’t compelling enough to
warrant interlocutory appeal.”</span>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-21414432808428984212024-03-01T08:21:00.008-05:002024-03-01T08:21:56.271-05:00North Carolina Assault by Strangulation Remains Crime of Violence<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224588.P.pdf"><b><i>US
v. Robinson</i></b></a><b>:</b> <a href="https://circuit4.blogspot.com/2022/06/nc-assault-by-strangulation-is-crime-of.html">In
2022, in <i>Rice</i></a>, the Fourth Circuit held that a conviction in North
Carolina for assault by strangulation is a “crime of violence” under the
Sentencing Guidelines. As I wrote at the time:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>Rice
argued that the assault conviction was not a crime of violence because it the
only intent required to sustain a conviction was culpable negligence. Had his
prior offense been “run of the mill assault . . . he would have a point.” The
complicating factor here was strangulation, which by its nature involves
conduct that “could not be accomplished absent an intentional, knowing or
purposeful state of mind.” This was true “even if not expressly stated” in
North Carolina law. In addition, no “ordinary person would say that a person
could strangle another without a purposeful, knowing or intentional state of
mind.” Nor could Rice point to any cases sustaining convictions for
strangulation that did not involve purposeful conduct.</blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Robinson, like Rice, was convicted of being a felon in
possession of a firearm and had his base offense level increased because of a
prior conviction for assault by strangulation. He argued that after the Supreme
Court’s decision in <i>US v. Taylor</i> (decided shortly after <i>Rice</i>),
the Fourth Circuit’s precedent was no longer valid and his prior conviction was
not a crime of violence. Specifically, Robinson argued that <i>Rice</i> relied
on “a survey of the conduct in published state cases” and Rice’s “failure to identify
a single case where the conduct described was negligent or reckless,” a
methodology that “cannot be squared” with <i>Taylor</i>. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In affirming the outcome of <i>Rice</i>, the Fourth Circuit
did not fundamentally disagree with Robinson on the holding of <i>Taylor</i>,
but ultimately concluded that <i>Rice</i> would have reached the same
conclusion even without considering such survey data. The court noted that in <i>Rice</i>
it had “found that North Carolina law suggests that assault by strangulation
requires intentional conduct” and that it “independently interpreted the text
of the North Carolina statute . . . and concluded that a person cannot commit
the act of strangling without knowing or intending it.” The survey analysis “in
<i>Rice</i> was only added to the opinion to provide additional confirmation
for our holding.” </p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-56736747430145478602024-03-01T08:20:00.007-05:002024-03-01T08:20:54.200-05:00No Fourth Amendment Violation In Traffic Stop, Seizure of Occupants and Search<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/214684.P.pdf"><b><i>US
v. Perry</i></b></a><b>:</b> Perry was in a SUV driven by his girlfriend,
McCarr, which police observed in “an area well-known for gang activity and
violent crimes.” The SUV lacked the necessary front license plate, leading
officers to follow. The SUV “tried to flee” from the officers, running two stop
signs. They found the SUV in a nearby parking lot, where they saw McCarr get
out of the driver’s side door and Perry briefly “lean towards the ground, the
floorboard” from the passenger’s seat “before jumping over the center console”
to exit the SUV.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perry and McCarr were both handcuffed. A patdown of Perry
uncovered a blue bandana which, along with intelligence that Perry had gang
connections, made officers conclude he was affiliated with the Crips. McCarr
gave permission to search the car, which uncovered a revolver “protruding from
a purse on the passenger’s-side floorboard.” McCarr said the gun belonged to
Perry. A second gun was found on the passenger’s-side floorboard, which turned
out to be stolen (and also belonged to Perry, according to McCarr). Perry was
charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, multiple counts of
witness tampering (based on attempts to keep McCarr from testifying against
him), and possession of marijuana. He was convicted at trial on all counts
after unsuccessfully moving to suppress the evidence found during the traffic
stop. He was sentenced to 210 months in prison.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Perry’s convictions
and sentence. Perry’s primary argument was that “he was unconstitutionally
seized for much of the” traffic stop. The court disagreed. The SUV was seized
when police found it in the parking lot and activated their blue lights, at
which point they had “both probable cause of observed traffic violations and
reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity.” The court rejected Perry’s
argument that the investigation during the stop went beyond the basis for it
(running the stop signs), concluding that “this ignores important evidence that
drove the mission of the seizure,” which included investigation of other
criminal activity. The court also found no violation in either the length of
the stop or Perry’s detention during it, based on the observations of the
officers.</p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-35866425401546092572024-03-01T08:20:00.003-05:002024-03-01T08:20:29.381-05:00Ruan Requires Vacation of Doctor’s Drug Convictions<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/194761.P.pdf"><b><i>US
v. Smithers</i></b></a><b>:</b> Smithers was a rural Virginia doctor who was
eventually charged (after a couple of superseding indictments) with hundreds of
counts of unlawful dispensing and distribution of controlled substances. Witnesses
at trial testified that many of Smithers’ patients did not pay for their own
prescriptions, some failed drug tests and other controls meant to root out
abuse, and Smithers sent some prescriptions through the mail without seeing
patients in the office. An expert witness testified that Smithers’ practices
were outside the scope of professional practice and not for legitimate medical
purposes. Smithers was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 480 months in
prison.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In his appeal, Smithers challenged (among other things) the
jury instructions given during his trial. His case was initially put in
abeyance pending the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwidgbGl47yEAxWEH0QIHYbYAPMQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F21pdf%2F20-1410_1an2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zp0RummRL8K-i2Gg17vut&opi=89978449"><i>Ruan</i></a>,
which addressed the <i>mens rea</i> which the Government was required to prove
in order secure a conviction in cases like this one. In light of <i>Ruan</i>,
and after supplemental briefing, the Fourth Circuit vacated Smithers’
convictions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, the court concluded that Smithers had properly raised
the issue below and, even if he had not, he was not precluded from presenting
it in supplemental briefing as “it would have been futile for him to argue for
a subjective standard” in his opening brief. Second, the court turned to the
instructions given at trial. At issue was the definition of “unauthorized”
prescribing, which was defined as either “without a legitimate medical purpose
or beyond the bounds of medical practice.” The court held that the instruction
“misstated the law post-<i>Ruan</i>” and that the error was not corrected by
any other jury instructions that had been given. Nor was the error harmless.</p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-45862205864370298792024-02-01T10:20:00.009-05:002024-02-01T10:20:54.957-05:00District Court Must Advise Defendant of “Effect of Supervised Release” During Rule 11 Colloquy<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/194865.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. King</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> King pleaded guilty to having
possessed a firearm as a felon. At the plea colloquy, “the court did not advise
King of the effect of supervised release or that a violation of the terms of
supervised release could result in a total maximum term of imprisonment in
excess of the statutory maximum for the offense.” King did not object or
otherwise try to withdraw his plea. He was sentenced to 110 in prison, followed
by a three-year term of supervised release.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, King’s counsel initially filed an <i>Anders </i>brief, but the Fourth
Circuit ordered the parties to address the issue of the district court’s
failure with regard to the effect of supervised release and whether that
required vacating King’s guilty plea. The court held that the district court
had erred, but that King suffered no prejudice and thus could not satisfy the
needs of plain error review. Looking at the history of Rule 11, the court noted
that prior Fourth Circuit precedent specifically required that defendants be
notified of the impact of supervised release and revocations and that the
require had, for a time, been within the rule itself. The specific reference in
Rule 11 was removed in 2002, but the court concluded that since those
amendments were not intended to be substantive that it did not change the
requirements of prior precedent. King’s substantial rights had not been
violated because he could not show that, had he been properly informed during
the Rule 11 colloquy, that he would have decided not to plead guilty.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-9679044160403961722024-02-01T10:20:00.005-05:002024-02-01T10:20:35.563-05:00Speedy Trial Act Doesn’t Always Pause During Plea Negotiations<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/204534.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Hart</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Hart was involved in drug
distribution and sex trafficking and drew the attention of federal
investigators. When he found out that one of his prostitutes had been
subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury he told her not to attend and, after
she did anyway, “he physically assaulted her and threatened to kill her son.”
For this he was charged, by complaint, on April 26, 2017, with witness
intimidation. At the request of the parties, the district court entered an
order on May 30, 2017 to “delay the filing of an Indictment and the holding of
a preliminary hearing to discuss the possibility” a plea agreement. No
agreement was reached, however, and Hart was ultimately indicted on July 17,
2017, 60 days after his was arrested. A superseding indictment added drug and
sex trafficking counts to the witness intimidation charge. The district court
denied Hart’s motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act and he was convicted
on all counts at trial.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the witness intimidation count, affirmed
convictions on all other counts, and remanded the case for resentencing. The
court first addressed whether the late initial indictment violated the Speedy
Trial Act. The court held it did, as none of the time between the running of
the 30-day deadline for indictment and the actual indictment (another 30 days
later) was properly excluded. The court held that intervening Supreme Court law
had abrogated prior Fourth Circuit decisions that time during which plea
negotiations were ongoing was automatically excluded. Instead, it could be
excluded only if the district court made the proper findings required for “end
of justice” continuances. As there was no such finding here, the Speedy Trial
Act had been violated and required dismissal of at least the witness tampering
count. The court rejected Hart’s argument that all counts should be dismissed,
concluding that the evidence presented on the witness intimidation count would
have been admissible even if that count had been dismissed and therefore there
was no “prejudicial spillover” from the Speedy Trial Act violation.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-75368321445879265302024-02-01T10:20:00.001-05:002024-02-01T10:20:08.208-05:00Cell Phones in Plain View Properly Seized as Instrumentalities of Drug Offenses<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224088.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Davis</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">: </span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Investigators believed Hough was
trafficking in firearms and had him under surveillance when he went to a local
gun store and purchased three pistols, having provided an “inaccurate address,”
driven a rental car to the store, and paying in cash. They stopped Hough’s car,
in which Darby was a passenger (and a felon), from which they recovered “two
ripped plastic baggies” they believed were consistent with drug distribution.
Hough admitted to his gun trafficking and said that some of the guns were
located in Darby’s home, into which Hough was soon moving. Officers obtained a
search warrant for the home.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Executing
the warrant, officers found Davis at the home, who initially tried to run from
them. While detained during the search, Davis was seen trying to dispose of
drugs into an HVAC vent on the floor. He was searched, with officers recovering
a small amount of drugs and some cash. In a bedroom that appeared to be Davis’,
officers found a shotgun, more drugs, and cash. Three cell phones were seized
from the home, one of which belonged to Davis. Davis was eventually charged
with conspiracy, possessing with intent, and firearm offenses. He
unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence found during the search and entered a
conditional guilty plea to one of the drug charges.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Davis’ motion to suppress. After
concluding, generally, that there was probable cause to believe that there was
evidence of a crime present in the home, the court sidestepped the particular
issue of whether there was probable cause necessary to search for and seized
drugs, instead holding that the seized drugs were either in plain view or
seized pursuant to Davis’ arrest. As to Davis’ cell phone, the court rejected
the Government’s argument that the phone was properly seized pursuant to his
arrest, noting that the record only showed that the phone was “recovered from
the residence,” but not specifically where. Instead, the court held that the
seizure of the phone was proper under the plain view doctrine as “its
incriminating character was immediately apparent,” given the evidence of drug
trafficking that was found on Davis himself and in his bedroom. The court pointed
out that “we do not hold that cell phones in plain view may <b><i>always</i></b>
be seized as instrumentalities of a crime,” noting that the “nature of the
alleged crime and the totality of the evidence are critical considerations.” A
cell phone is an “everyday object” without a primary criminal purpose, so “for
a cell phone to be seized in plain view, the additional evidence or indicators
of criminality have significant work to do to establish probable cause.” The
court also made clear that it was not holding that the lawful plain view
seizure of the phone authorized a search of its contents (for which
investigators had gotten a warrant).</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-58970519722261186362024-02-01T10:19:00.008-05:002024-02-01T10:19:46.950-05:00Result of Prior Search, Presence of Unanticipated Person During Arrest, Supported Protective Sweep<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224536.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Everett</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">: </span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Everett was involved in a drug
distribution operation in which he was “known to sell ‘practically . . .
everything’” in North Carolina. He had two associates to whom he would sell
large amounts of (among other things) marijuana, who would then distribute the
drugs. One of the associates, Murray, was arrested and gave a statement to
police that pointed to an apartment used by Everett as a stash house. Officers
executed a search warrant there, recovering drugs and a firearm (among other
things). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Officers
obtained an arrest warrant for Everett and tracked him to a different
apartment. Everett was home with officers arrived, along with his wife, a
friend, and two children. Officers decided to do a protective sweep of the
apartment, during which they discovered multiple firearms and some THC gummies.
They eventually obtained a warrant to search the apartment and seized four
firearms, “at least” $65,000 in cash, and other drug paraphernalia. After being
charged with multiple drug and firearm counts, Everett unsuccessfully moved to
suppress the evidence found in the apartment where he was arrested. He was
found guilty of all counts at trial and sentenced to 480 months in prison.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Everett’s convictions and sentence. His
main challenge to the convictions was that police lacked the necessary concern
to conduct the protective sweep of the apartment where he was arrested, which
led to the seizure of significant evidence used against him. The court
concluded that the officers had sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that
another dangerous person was present, based both on what was found in the
search of the stash house (the firearm, particularly), evidence that Everett
was a “high-level drug dealer,” the presence of unexpected people at the
apartment, and the presence of security cameras outside the apartment. As to
his sentence, Everett’s primary challenge was the district court’s reliance on
Murray’s statement to police in attributing relevant conduct to him, rather
than Murray’s trial testimony, which was less specific as to amounts. The court
concluded that the district court’s determination that Murray’s initial
statement was credible was not clearly erroneous.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-30283956152096324882024-02-01T10:19:00.004-05:002024-02-01T10:19:26.264-05:00Court Divides on Extension of Traffic Stop<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224209.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Smart</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Smart was pulled over in
Louisiana in 2017 by a state trooper. The trooper was suspicious because Smart
“seemed nervous,” could “provide only ‘clunky’ answers to questions,” and had a
gas can in his car. The trooper ran his drug dog around the car. It alerted and
5.6 kilograms of cocaine were recovered from the car. Additional investigation,
including search of homes in Virginia and North Carolina, led to Smart being
indicted for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it, along
with other drug and firearm offenses. At trial, Smart was acquitted on the
firearm charge, but convicted on all others, and sentenced to a term of 360
months in prison.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Smart’s convictions. Smart’s main argument
on appeal was that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress
evidence from the initial Louisiana traffic stop, contending that the trooper
lacked the suspicion needed to extend the stop to allow his drug dog to be run
around the car. The court disagreed, holding that the totality of circumstances
showed reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. In particular, the court
deferred to the trooper’s explanation of why the gas can in the car was
suspicious (in his experience, drug traffickers frequently take extra gas with
them so they will not have to stop as often on the return trip), specifically
noting that the district court found the trooper’s “testimony credible and
relied on it.” The court also noted that Hart was not merely described as
“nervous” but “<b><i>extremely </i></b>nervous,” conclusions that were backed
up by the trooper’s observations of Smart during the stop.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Judge Traxler wrote a
concurring opinion, diving more deeply into the record to “highlight the
additional evidence that was presented at the suppression hearing that supports
the district court’s decision.” Judge Wynn, however, wrote a dissenting
opinion, arguing that the “majority opinion makes critical errors in its
analysis – errors that will reverberate far beyond this case” because “it
defers to a police officer’s (apparently unassailable) expertise on innocuous
facts to find reasonable suspicion where there is none.” The “ultimate result”
of that analysis is that “little more than a driver’s nervousness and the
presence of a can of gas now offer open invitations for police officers to
invade drivers’ privacy.”</span></p>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-66993584518382702042024-02-01T10:15:00.003-05:002024-02-01T10:15:22.277-05:00Court Clarifies Standard of Review for “Serious Bodily Injury” Enhancement<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224442.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Gross</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">: </span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Gross, a felon, possessed a
rifle which he used to shoot at AC, who had been staying at the home Gross
shared with his parents and girlfriend. The shot didn’t hit AC, but it hit the
ground near him and “three metal fragments” hit him near the right eye. AC ran
away and a neighbor called 911. AC said he felt pain while waiting for
paramedics arrived and, while initially telling them he was not in pain, told
doctors at the hospital he was and received pain killers. AC left the hospital
shortly thereafter, but continued to have pain (“probably one of the worst
pains I have had”) and experienced “chronic sinus problems” since the incident.
At sentencing, the main issue was whether AC’s injury was sufficient to be
“serious bodily injury” under the Guidelines (rather than lesser “bodily
injury”), a determination that would lead both to an enhancement and a
cross-reference that would increase Gross’ advisory Guideline range. The
district court applied the enhancement and sentenced Gross to the bottom of the
resulting Guideline range.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Gross’ sentence. The court’s main focus was
on what the proper standard of review to apply was in this case. Gross argued
for a <i>de novo</i> standard, because the application of the enhancement
turned on a legal interpretation of the Guideline’s terms, while the Government
argued for a clearly erroneous standard, as the district court’s decision was
primarily resolving a question of fact. The court agreed with the Government,
noting that had the district court applied the wrong legal standard when
resolving Gross’ objection <b><i>that</i></b> would have been a legal question
subject to <i>de novo</i> review, but that the district court applied the
correct standard. The application itself was not clearly erroneous, even though
Gross could muster contrary facts that might support his position.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-87979373116337722472024-02-01T10:14:00.007-05:002024-02-01T10:14:59.828-05:00Court Affirms VICAR, and Other, Convictions; Vacates One Life Sentence<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/164844.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Ortiz-Orellana</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">: </span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Ortiz-Orellana and his
codefendant, Perez-Chach, were MS-13 members who were involved in two murders,
one of a supposed informant (they killed the wrong guy), the other of a rival
gang member. They were convicted at trial of RICO conspiracy, multiple counts
of VICAR murder in aid of racketeering, and related firearm offenses. Each was
convicted at trial and sentenced to multiple life sentences.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">The
Fourth Circuit affirmed Ortiz-Orellana’s and Perez-Chach’s conviction, and most
of their sentences. Both of them argued that the district court erred by
allowing the Government to use summary exhibits at trial and failing to provide
a limiting instruction as to those exhibits. The charts involved phone calls
made by the codefendants, from which the Government was required to redact
names. Nor were the charts admitted into evidence, but used only as an “illustrative
aid” during the testimony of an FBI agent. The court held that the district
court’s instructions on the charts (including that they were not “independent
evidence” and could not be given “greater consideration” than the evidence upon
which they were based) and, thus, no abuse of discretion. Because Ortiz-Orellana
and Perez-Chach did not ask for any additional limiting instruction review was
for plain error and the court found none. Ortiz-Orellana separately argued that
his VICAR convictions were not based on a “crime of violence” because the
Maryland state murder offenses involved could sustain convictions on a
felony-murder theory. While that was true, the court ultimately held that the
statutes in question were divisible and, upon reviewing the <i>Shepard</i>
documents, it was “clear” that Ortiz-Orellana “committed a deliberate,
premeditated, and willful killing,” which made it a crime of violence. The
court did vacate Ortiz-Orellana’s sentence as to one count, where the district
court (in contravention of a recent Supreme Court decision) held that it was
required to impose the life sentence on that count consecutively to all others.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-38776738081257870892024-02-01T10:14:00.003-05:002024-02-01T10:14:33.419-05:00Requirement That Witnesses Wear Face Masks During Trial Did Not Violate Sixth Amendment<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224178.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Maynard</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Maynard was a police officer in
West Virginia. He and his partner one night arrested Wilfong on outstanding
warrants and for public intoxication. A tense rapport developed between Maynard
and Wilfong (most of which was captured on video recorded in the police
station). After Maynard had escorted Wilfong to the bathroom (which was off
camera), he put on a pair of black gloves and told his partner “tonight’s the
night” before flipping off the camera. From the bathroom came shouting and a
series of loud noises. Wilfong fell on the floor (back on camera), at which
point Maynard picked him up and hauled him across the room, eventually slamming
Wilfong’s head into a doorframe. Maynard told his partner to call an ambulance
and that he “went too fucking far.” Wilfong had a broken nose and cuts on his
forehead that required staples to close. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Maynard
was charged with violating Wilfong’s civil rights. Prior to trial, the district
court entered an order requiring that everyone participating in the trial,
including witnesses, wear face masks at all time due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Maynard objected and suggested an alternative – clear face masks that would
allow jurors to see the witnesses’ faces as they testified. The district court
rejected the suggestion, finding such masks insufficient protection. Maynard
went to trial, was convicted, and sentenced to 108 months in prison, the bottom
of the advisory Guideline range calculated at sentencing.</span></p><p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal, the Fourth
Circuit affirmed Maynard’s conviction and sentence. As to the masking of
witnesses, the court rejected Maynard’s argument that it violated his Sixth
Amendment right to confront witnesses and interfered with the jury’s prime
position with regards to determining the credibility of those witnesses. The court
held that the district court’s decision reflected an “important public policy
interest” such as that the Supreme Court recognized in <i>Craig</i>, holding
that was still good law after <i>Crawford</i>. In addition, the court held that
the reliability of witness testimony was “otherwise assured” as they were
cross-examined and the jury could examine their demeanor (at least partially).
Finally, the court held that Maynard’s trial “preserved the Confrontation
Clause’s core principles – physical presence and the opportunity for
cross-examination.” The court also rejected Maynard’s argument that the
district court erred in imposing a Guideline enhancement for “serious bodily
injury,” holding that Wilfong’s injuries met that standard.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Full disclosure - I was defense counsel in this appeal. <br /></span></p>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-36001973170966463672024-02-01T10:13:00.005-05:002024-02-01T11:23:21.323-05:00Remand Required Due to “Opaque” Ruling on Obstruction Enhancement<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/214281.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Pettus</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Pettus stole a gold chain from
a man named Salley, who chased him, caught him, and started beating him up.
Pettus pulled a gun and Salley backed off. About an hour later they saw each
other again and Pettus fired several times in Salley’s direction. Pettus then
ran to a nearby parking garage and secreted the gun in the wheel well of a
parked car. Police arrived, Salley identified Pettus as the robber, and they
found the gun shortly thereafter. Pettus pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 108 months in prison, within the
advisory Guideline range calculated at sentencing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Pettus’ sentence and remanded for further
proceedings. Among the enhancements applied at sentencing was one for
obstruction of justice based on Pettus hiding the gun. The court found the
district court’s ruling overruling Pettus’ objection to that enhancement to be
“opaque” such that it “prevents us from determining whether the matters in
disputed are mainly factual or legal.” It noted that the district court
mentioned “concealment” as the basis for the enhancement, but that the
Guideline does not support the enhancement on that basis if the concealment was
contemporaneous with the arrest. “The problem is that, on this record,” the
court held, “we cannot tell how (or even if) the district court answered those
questions.” On remand, the court pointed out, the district court should make
its ruling on the record as it currently exists, without the Government having
a chance to bolster it.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Congrats to the Defender office in WDNC on the win! <br /></span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-48013180438428607452024-02-01T10:13:00.000-05:002024-02-01T10:13:07.911-05:00References to Punishment During Explanation of Revocation Sentence Didn’t Make It Unreasonable<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224291.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Lewis</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Lewis was on supervised release
when he committed, and was convicted of committing, three state drug offenses.
His supervised release was revoked for violating the standard condition that he
not violate any state, federal, or local law. At sentencing, the Government
argued for a sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guideline range, 37 months,
while Lewis argued for a sentence of 36 months, concurrent with his state
sentence. The district court imposed a sentence of 20 months in prison
(consecutive to his state sentence), noting two particular factors in its
explanation, Lewis’ criminal history (which was “horrendous”) and his
in-custody record (which had “been good”). The district court also stated that
such a sentence would “satisfy all the factors set forth in §3553(a), and
provide for just punishment, and reflect the extent of the breach of trust
evidenced by” Lewis’ conduct.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lewis’ revocation sentence, rejecting two
related arguments. The first was that the district court relied on an improper
factor when it considered the need to “provide for just punishment.” That is
because while 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) incorporates most of the § 3553(a) factors,
it specifically excludes the need to provide the just punishment for the
offense. The court concluded that the district court’s references to those
factors were “ambiguous when considered in their overall context,” including
the fat that the “factors on which the court actually made its decision were
fully authorized.” The court likewise rejected Lewis’ related argument that the
policy statements in the Guidelines were invalid because they incorporated the
need for punishment into them.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-5819853424448499892024-02-01T10:09:00.001-05:002024-02-01T10:09:23.210-05:00All Counts Related to Marriage-Based Citizenship Fraud Reversed<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224128.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Gallagher</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Gallagher met Kalugin, who was
in the United States on a student visa, while in law school in California. They
were married in 2015 and began the process of getting Kalugin his citizenship.
They moved to Virginia in 2016, so Gallagher could become a foreign service
officer. Shortly thereafter, however, Kalugin returned to California, obtaining
a new ID that listed his address in that state. Between 2016 and 2018,
Gallagher moved to Mexico to begin her service, Kalugin travelled to Virginia
twice for immigration interviews, and he received his citizenship (in
accelerated fashion due to Gallagher’s job). Kalugin then briefly moved to
Mexico with Gallagher, but left after a month. Gallagher filed for divorce, listing
their separation date as May 1, 2016, before either of Kalugin’s immigration
interviews.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">They
were charged with conspiring to falsely obtain naturalization and citizenship
for Kalugin and two substantive counts, one based on Kalugin making four
materially false statements in a form submitted as part of the process and the
other on two false statements he made during his final interview. They were
found guilty on all counts, with Kalugin sentenced to six months in prison and
Gallagher to 15 months.</span></p><p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal, the Fourth
Circuit vacated their convictions on all counts, although on different grounds.
After concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain all the
convictions, the court looked to the count based on the form Kalugin had filed,
noting that while it alleged four different false statements the jury’s verdict
was a general one “without specifying the statement(s) on which that verdict
was based.” Post verdict, however, the district court had correctly ruled that
one of those statements could not have supported a conviction because Kalugin’s
answer was literally true, if misleading. The jury was allowed to consider a
“legally inadequate theory” of conviction and it was not clear the jury
necessarily relied on another, legally adequate one. As to the other two
counts, they required vacation because the district court had abused its
discretion by excluding evidence of Facebook messages Gallagher and Kalugin
shared with each other after the spring of 2016, when the Government alleged
the marriage was already over. The court concluded that they were admissible
either as non-hearsay or under an exception for statements showing a
defendant’s “then-existing state of mind.”</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Congrats to the Defender office in EDVA (and co-counsel) on the win! <br /></span></p>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-67365035844961377302024-02-01T10:08:00.001-05:002024-02-01T10:08:16.120-05:00Vacating Drug Conspiracy Sentence Where District Court Utilized Wrong Standard<p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="376">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hashtag"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/214181.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Evans</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">: </span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">Evans was involved in a
conspiracy to sell drugs in West Virginia and Ohio. He got his drugs from
Gregory, in Ohio, who in turn worked for Douglas, who transported large
quantities from Georgia to Ohio. On one trip he was stopped by police, who
recovered 2.78 kilograms of “ice” methamphetamine. Evans was convicted, at
trial, of conspiracy and two substantive counts of possession with intent based
on controlled buys made from his underlings. At sentencing, the probation
officer calculated Evans’ Guideline range as life in prison, capped by 80 years
worth of statutory maxima. Among his many objections, Evans objected to the
relevant conduct attributed to him – the 2.78 kilograms of meth recovered from
Douglas, upon which the Government exclusively relied. The district court
overruled the objection and sentenced Evans to 80 years in prison.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Evans’ sentence. The court noted that to
attribute relevant conduct from one coconspirator to another the court must
make particularized findings as to the scope of their agreement and whether the
coconspirator’s conduct fell within it. The district court failed to make such
findings in this case, instead asking “only whether the drugs seized from
Douglas were within the scope of the entire conspiracy.” That was the standard
for substantive liability, not for attributing relevant conduct. The court
refused to determine the relevant conduct attributable to Evans on appeal, calling
it a “fact-intensive determine” that was “well outside our purview as an
appellate court.” The court also held that the district court erred by imposing
enhancements for both possession of a firearm and making a credible threat to
use violence, noting that the later cannot apply if it is based entirely on the
possession of a firearm.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-67172252834219385162024-02-01T10:05:00.001-05:002024-02-01T10:05:13.968-05:00Court Affirms “Prohibited Person” Status at Sentencing in Firearm Case, Finds No Plain Bruen Error<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224426.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Claybrook</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Claybrook broke into a sporting
goods store and stole several firearms, two of which were recovered from his
home. At the same time, in his car, officers found six grams of
methamphetamine. After a federal indictment for possession of stolen firearms
was obtained and Claybrook was arrested, officers found marijuana in his home.
At sentencing, his base offense level was increased due to the fact that he was
a “prohibited person” at the time he possessed the guns because he was an
unlawful user of drugs. Claybrook objected to that designation on a factual
basis, but was overruled. The district court sentenced him to 70 months in
prison, an upward variance.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal, the Fourth
Circuit affirmed Claybrook’s sentence. While taking note that the “legal
contours of ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance are not well defined
within the statute,” the court found the district court’s conclusion that
Claybrook was one was not clearly erroneous. The record included not just the
drugs recovered from Claybrook’s car and home, but his statements during the
presentence interview that he “was addicted to marijuana and had been smoking
the substance on a daily basis” until his arrest. The court also rejected a
challenge to the vagueness of the unlawful user statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3),
noting that Claybrook’s conduct “falls squarely within the confines of the
disputed statute.” Claybrook also argued that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional
in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>Bruen</i>. Applying plain error
review, the court concluded that, at the very least, a contrary conclusion was
not “plain” (without addressing first whether it was error).</span>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-18832406326517743822024-02-01T10:04:00.005-05:002024-02-01T11:11:04.310-05:00Court Affirms Denial of Compassionate Release on § 3553(a) Grounds<p><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/226607.P.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">US v. Centeno-Morales</span></i></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;"> Centeno-Morales was convicted
in 2015 on gun and firearm charges and sentenced to a total of 180 months in
prison. In 2021, he filed a <i>pro se</i> motion for compassionate release
based on his poor health and the increased risks related to COVID-19 in
correctional facilities. He later supplemented the motion after the death of
his wife, arguing that his son was now without a primary caregiver, an
additional reason for relief. The Government conceded this constituted
“extraordinary and compelling” reasons for relief, but argued Centeno-Morales
should not be released based on the relevant sentencing factors from 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif;">On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Centeno-Morales’s motion for
compassionate release. In doing so, the court noted the “broad discretion” that
courts have in resolving such motions. In particular that is the case for
judges who were the same judge that sentenced the defendant initially, as
happened here. The court concluded that the district court did not overlook any
of Centeno-Morales’s arguments and was not required to refute each one in
detail. In addition, the court’s discussion of the § 3553(a) factors was
sufficient.</span></p>
Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-6229192838991691442023-12-22T11:43:00.001-05:002023-12-22T11:43:12.597-05:00Remanding 2255 Proceeding for Hearing Regarding Scope of Investigator’s Misconduct<p><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/197861.P.pdf">US v. Paylor</a></span></i></b><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">:
</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Paylor was charged with being a felon in possession
of a firearm, based on evidence provided by Detective Daniel Hersl of
Baltimore’s infamous Gun Trace Task Force (as seen in David Simon’s <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Own_This_City">We Own This City</a></i>).
Paylor always claimed (in recorded phone calls from the jail) that the gun,
recovered from under a cushion on his front porch, had been planted and that
during the arrest Hersl and two other officers stole money from inside the
home. After an unsuccessful motion to suppress, Paylor sought from the
Government information about allegations of misconduct against Hersl, ultimate
a handful of which were turned over. Paylor decided to plead guilty “because
counsel did not believe only four complaints were enough to establish a pattern
of corruption by Detective Hersl in order to discredit his testimony” about the
arrest. Paylor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 60 months in prison.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Two years later, Hersl was charged
(along with others) with extortion, robbery, and other offenses. As part of that
case, Paylor testified before a grand jury about his arrest, which produced a
superseding indictment against Hersl and a Rule 35 motion for Paylor, which he
turned down because of the risk of retaliation from police, that the Government
would not entirely vacate his conviction, and the short time left on his
sentence. Hersl was eventually convicted on multiple counts after a trial in
which the jury specifically found he had falsely arrested and robbed another
suspect in circumstances similar to Paylor’s arrest.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Paylor filed a 2255 motion seeking to
withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that Hersl’s misconduct “rendered his plea
involuntary, and consequently, he should be permitted to withdraw it.” The
district court denied the motion, without holding a hearing or permitting
Paylor to engage in discovery, as only one of the proven acts of misconduct by
Hersl occurred before Paylor’s arrest and it was part of the allegations
disclosed to Paylor prior to his plea.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal the Fourth
Circuit ordered Paylor’s 2255 motion remanded to the district court. The court
noted that in situations like Paylor a petitioner does not have to allege
actual innocence, only that “there was egregiously impermissible conduct
involved in his prosecution” such that “this misconduct influenced his decision
to plead guilty.” The court scolded the Government for its vacillation in
Paylor’s case – from arguing he was guilty of the offense, to arguing he was
not due to Hersl’s misconduct, and then back to Paylor’s guilt in defending his
2255 motion. Turning to the evidence of Hersl’s misconduct, the court held that
the relevant time frame was what happened prior to Paylor’s arrest and that,
right now, that included only the incident that was part of Hersl’s guilty
verdict (for that reason the court did not reverse the denial of Paylor’s
motion). However, Paylor had demonstrated the need for discovery and an
evidentiary hearing so that he could attempt to develop further evidence.</span>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-64995228838357252262023-12-22T11:42:00.003-05:002023-12-22T11:42:34.446-05:00Vacating Felon-In-Possession Sentence Due to Pair of Improper Enhancements<p><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/214235.P.pdf">US v. Henderson</a></span></i></b><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">:
</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Police responded to an incident and found
Henderson, armed with a rifle, “shove a woman to the ground and point the
firearm directly at her.” He fled when confronted, but was quickly captured and
the rifle recovered (from a different location). Henderson pleaded guilty to
being a felon in possession of a firearm. The probation officer recommended a
pair of enhancements that were ultimately applied at sentencing, over
Henderson’s objections. The first was a four-level enhancement for possession
in connection with another felony offense, particularly possession of a firearm
by someone subjected to a Domestic Violence Protective Order. The second was an
enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight. The district court imposed
a sentence of 60 months in prison, an upward variance from the advisory
Guideline range.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal, the Fourth
Circuit vacated Henderson’s sentence, finding that the application of both
enhancements was error. As to the in-connection-with enhancement, the court
noted it had previously held that a defendant cannot be “punished more severely
for simultaneously violating multiple provisions of [18 U.S.C.] 922(g) with the
same act of possession,” a principle that applies equally to sentencing
enhancements. That position is bolstered by Guideline commentary which excludes
from the definition of “another felony offense”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>offenses such as “explosives or firearms possession or trafficking
offenses.” As for flight, the court relied on it’s prior decision in <i><a href="https://circuit4.blogspot.com/2023/01/throwing-gun-away-during-flight.html">Shivers</a></i>
that flight with a firearm, standing alone, is not enough to justify the
enhancement.</span>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-74199206960951223862023-12-22T11:41:00.006-05:002023-12-22T11:41:55.906-05:00No Dismissal Due to Tardy Government Request<p><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/214185.P.pdf">US v. Kemp</a></span></i></b><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">:</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
Kemp was charged with nine counts related to the sexual abuse of his children,
eventually pleading guilty to s single count of aggravated sexual abuse. As
part of the plea agreement Kemp agreed to “a broad appeal waiver” waiving his
right to appeal any sentence so long as it was within the advisory Guideline
range. That range was 360 months to life in prison. The district court imposed
a sentence of life, followed by a lifetime of supervised release (neat trick!).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Kemp filed a notice of appeal that was
untimely. In the Fourth Circuit’s order setting a briefing schedule it
specifically informed the Government that failure to file a motion to dismiss
by the deadline for filing its response brief “may result in waiver of
defenses.” Kemp’s appellate counsel filed an <i>Anders</i> brief and the
Government, per the order, filed a motion to dismiss based only on the appeal
waiver in the plea agreement. After reviewing the case, the Fourth Circuit
ordered supplementary briefing related to the validity of Kemp’s guilty plea
and <i><a href="https://circuit4.blogspot.com/2020/06/special-sr-conditions-must-be-imposed.html">Rogers</a></i>/<i><a href="https://circuit4.blogspot.com/2021/01/right-to-appeal-sr-conditions-imposed.html">Singletary</a></i>
error with regards to supervised release conditions. The Government’s brief
addressed both the merits and argued that the appeal should be dismissed for
being untimely.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The Fourth Circuit vacated Kemp’s
sentence, but affirmed his conviction. In doing so, it denied the Government’s
motion to dismiss based on untimeliness, noting that the Government had
complied with the initial briefing schedule when it filed a motion to dismiss,
but because that was limited to the appeal waiver it resulted in the waiver by
the Government of the argument that the appeal was untimely. On the merits, the
court held that while the guilty plea colloquy was deficient, it was not so
deficient as to undermine its voluntariness. On the supervised release
conditions, however, the court held that some were erroneously imposed only in
writing after the sentencing hearing, a plain error that required remand for a
full resentencing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">In a concurrence, Judge
Quattlebaum argued that the court should reconsider <i>Rogers</i> and <i>Singletary</i>
because their “internal reasoning” was “inconsistent and conflicts with our precedent
concerning errors in a written judgment” and that the full sentencing remedy is
one which “we do not consistently employ.”</span></p>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9419507.post-5491143170877518102023-12-22T11:40:00.003-05:002023-12-22T11:40:18.853-05:00Proper Amount of Restitution Fell Within Scope of Appeal Waiver<p><b><i><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/204604.P.pdf">US v. Taylor-Sanders</a></span></i></b><b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">:
</span></b><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Taylor-Sanders was charged with multiple counts of
wire fraud and identity theft. She pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud,
pursuant to a plea agreement in which she waived “all rights to contest the
conviction and sentence in any appeal” on grounds other than ineffective
assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. She later moved to withdraw
her plea, arguing that she was told she had no choice but to plead guilty and
her plea was not voluntary. The district court denied her request finding her
“not credible.” She was sentenced to 66 months in prison and ordered to
restitution of more than $700,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">On appeal, Taylor-Sanders
sought review of several issues, including the amount of restitution imposed as
part of her sentence. On that issue, Taylor-Sanders argued that because the
restitution amount included amounts not covered by the Mandatory Victims
Restitution Act the restitution as awarded exceeded the scope of the district
court’s authority and, therefore, was not covered by the appeal waiver. The
court disagreed, noting the distinction between where a district court lacks
the legal authority to award restitution and where it makes a legal error as to
the amount of restitution owed. The later error is covered by broad appeal
waivers, like the one in this case.</span>Jonathan Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430320119368870972noreply@blogger.com0