Court Vacates Something for Reasons Unknown - But Is Unhappy With the Government

US v. Adams: Adams was charged with . . . something. Based on a check of the docket sheet on PACER, it was multiple counts of conspiracy, racketeering, and murder. I have no idea what the outcome of the proceedings were, however, because most of the documents below are sealed. But I assume he was convicted of something, since he appealed.

Good news for Adams - he won. On plain error review, no less. But, again, I have no idea how or why, because the court's nearly unanimous opinion is, likewise, sealed (although, to be fair, it urges the district court to revisit whether the documents should stay sealed). What isn't sealed, however, is the Fourth Circuit's sealing order, which has little to do with sealing (on which the panel was unanimous), and everything to do with questioning why the Government put up a fight on appeal.

The opinion, written by Judge King, contains a footnote (set forth in the sealing order) that expresses surprise "that the government failed to confess plain error on appeal and thereby enhance the integrity of judicial proceedings." It invoked Berger v. US and the old chestnut that a prosecutor's first duty was to justice.

Judge Agee joined all of the panel opinion except that footnote. In a concurrence issued as part of the sealing order (and itself partially redacted). He emphasized the Government's "'broad' prosecutorial discretion," that said discretion applies on appeal, and that this "case does not present one of those rare occasions when we should disparage a coordinate branch for doing what the Constitution and its statutory mandate charge it to do." Of course, we have no idea if Judge Agree is correct, since we don't even know what the issue(s?) on appeal was, much less what the Government's argument was.

Senior Judge Davis issued his own concurrence, joining Judge King's opinion "in full." He contrasted himself to Judge Agee, "who apparently believe[s] it is never appropriate for those of us in the Judicial Branch to express reservations or disapproval of manifestly irregular, if not illegal, 'strategic choices' by prosecutors," and instead "believe[s] judges need to say more, not less, to the political deficits in our criminal justice system." He goes on to say (internal citation omitted):

Contemporary discord in this country we all love, especially in stressed communities where interaction with the criminal justice system is a regular and dispiriting occurrence for many residents, might well be reduced if we judges better used our voices to inform and educate the political branches about how the decisions they make actually operate down here on the ground floor of the criminal justice system. In an era of mass incarceration such as ours, any fear that restrained judicial commentary on dicey prosecutorial practices or “strategic choices” might result in 'the Government [] becom[ing] a less zealous advocate,' is most charitably described as fanciful.

Prior offenses impact grading of supervised release violations

US v. Wynn:  Anthony Wynn began a 5-year term of supervised release upon completion of the imprisonment portion of a 150-month drug trafficking sentence.  His PO filed a petition for revocation of Wynn’s supervised release after Wynn tested positive for marijuana use 6 times, as well as other allegations, e.g., driving without a license, operating an uninsured vehicle, and tinted windows, failing to submit monthly reports, failure to complete substance abuse treatment, and failing to timely advise his PO of a new arrest.  Wynn admitted his violation conduct; the district court found that Wynn had violated his supervised release, and revoked him.

Wynn’s PO calculated a term of imprisonment based on Wynn’s prior drug convictions.  Even though his marijuana charges would have been grade C violations absent any consideration of Wynn’s criminal history, the PO counted the violations as grade B violations under a recidivist enhancement.  Wynn had prior convictions in state court for possession of heroin, possession with intent to deliver heroin, possession of marijuana, and possession of heroin, and possession of cocaine and marijuana, dating from 1994 through 2002.  The district court held that Wynn’s recidivism directly affected the grade of his violations; Wynn challenged the procedural calculations of his revocation sentence on appeal.

The question on appeal was whether the court properly applied a statutory enhancement in calculating the applicable policy statement range, whether Wynn’s conduct of possessing marijuana was a grade B or C violation under the policy statements.  The difference between these two violations is the length of the term of imprisonment the offense may by punishable by:  grade C violations call for one year or less; grade B violations call for term exceeding one year.  Application Note 1 to USSG §7B1.1, according to the panel here, allows the “district court to consider not only conduct for which a defendant is prosecuted in a criminal case, but all of a defendant’s conduct,” whether or not the defendant has been prosecuted for it.  The commentary, the panel found, suggests that district courts should consider all conduct that affects the maximum penalties for a violation of supervised release.  The Fourth Circuit upheld the determination that this defendant’s possession of marijuana during his supervised release constituted grade B, not grade C, violations.

Simmons does not shield defendant from 12-level enhancement

US v. Bercian-Flores:  In this appeal, Jose Bercian-Flores challenged the sentencing enhancement he received in his illegal re-entry case, a 12-level bump based upon his prior 1997 conviction for unlawfully transporting aliens.  Bercian-Flores argued on appeal that Simmons shielded him from this enhancement, as his guidelines range for his 1997 conviction (when the guidelines were mandatory) was zero to 6 months; the Fourth Circuit found, however, that since the sentencing judge in 1997 had the discretion to sentence Bercian-Flores for up to five years then, the enhancement here was not an error.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence.

Bercian-Flores emphasized that he was not punished for more than a year for his 1997 conviction, and the guidelines prescribe a 12-level enhancement for illegal re-entry defendants when such an individual has a prior felony conviction for smuggling other aliens “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”  U.S.S.G. §2L1.2.  What’s more, the judge who sentenced Bercian-Flores in 1997 had found no aggravating factors, and no factual findings that warranted an upward departure beyond zero to six months.  The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that the top sentence in a guidelines range is not the maximum term of imprisonment, as determined by the Supreme Court.  The statutory maximum sentence as set by Congress controls whether Bercian-Flores’ prior convictions counts as a predicate felony for sentencing enhancement here, not the top sentence in his guidelines range.

Pretrial motions improperly reduced government's ability to put on case

US v. Bajoghli:  In this interlocutory appeal, the Fourth Circuit analyzed the propriety of a district court’s decisions on certain pretrial motions.  The Fourth Circuit panel reversed and remanded, and found that the evidence the defendant attempted to strike or exclude was relevant to the government’s ability to prove its case, and it was an abuse of the district court’s discretion to “unduly restrict the latitude reasonably necessary for the government to carry its burden of proof.”

Bajoghli stands accused of healthcare fraud.  The government has alleged that over a three-and-one-half-year period, Bajoghli, a dermatologist, orchestrated a scheme of falsely diagnosing patients with cancer, and performing unnecessary procedures on his unsuspecting patients.  Bajoghli would also direct “unqualified” medical assistants to perform a variety of procedures without supervision, but he would bill healthcare benefits programs as if he, himself, had performed them, billing the programs at a higher rate.

The government argued in its appeal that in order to prove a healthcare fraud scheme existed, it must be able to prove the “entire scheme,” with evidence that may not be directly related to the 53 charges, yet was relevant to proving the scheme.  The district court had ruled that evidence presented at trial must relate to one of the 53 instances of fraud named in the indictment, and Bajoghli argued that evidence of uncharged conduct would only be “loosely relevant” to the charged offenses and should be excluded under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial as well as under Rule 404(b)’s notice requirement, as “other acts” evidence.  The Fourth Circuit found that evidence of the entire scheme is relevant to proving the 53 charged acts, in proving the “boundaries” of the scheme.  Additionally, the Fourth Circuit found that since evidence of conduct not charged in a specific execution may be relevant to the healthcare fraud scheme, Rule 404(b) does not regulate it as “other bad acts.”

The district court ruled that post-scheme conduct should be excluded as “prior bad acts evidence” governed by 404(b), for which the government failed to provide adequate notice to Bajoghli.  The district court also excluded this evidence under Rule 403.  In his appeal, Bajoghli argued that Rule 404(b) does apply to this evidence because it would not be “intrinsic” to any of the charged executions of healthcare fraud.  However, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the government that this evidence was probative of Bajoghli’s knowledge and intent, which are elements of healthcare fraud, and since Rule 404(b) does not apply to conduct that is “intrinsic” to the charged crime, it was an error for the district court to use it as a basis for the exclusion of this evidence.  The district court further misapplied Rule 403 here, according to the panel, because it reflects a misunderstanding of what constitutes unfair prejudice, i.e., evidence that would “lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged.” [Emphasis in original].

Lastly, with respect to the financial gain Bajoghli allegedly earned by charging his healthcare benefits providers for work that Bajoghli allegedly sent off to outside contractors (who completed the work at a fraction of what Bajoghli purportedly received), the Fourth Circuit and the government concurred again, in that this evidence of financial gain was probative of intent to defraud.

District Court's Advocacy of Plea Bargain Requires Vacation of Plea

US v. Braxton: Braxton was charged with possession with intent to distribute more than 1 kilogram of heroin. His attorney advised him during plea negotiations that, if he went to trial, the Government could file an information increasing his mandatory minimum sentence if convicted from 10 to 20 years. Braxton at first requested a new attorney, but later withdrew the request. He insisted on going to trial, however, before which the Government filed the information.

On the day of trial, the court memorialized the last plea offer that Braxton rejected (he would admit he possessed the heroin, but he wanted to put the Government to its proof) - the Government would withdraw the information and argue for a sentence of 15 years. Braxton again asked for new counsel or, in the alternative, to represent himself. Both of those requests were denied. Wading into the dispute between Braxton and his attorney, the district court expressed reluctance at letting Braxton go to trial, said Braxton was "hurting [his] own interest," and compared his decision to "put[ting] [your] head in a buzz saw that makes absolutely no sense." After a couple of breaks in the proceedings, Braxton changed his mind and agreed to plead guilty. Braxton said he didn't feel coerced or pressured into pleading, although the district court had expressed its concern that he was "unwisely proceeding to trial before a jury." Braxton unsuccessful tried to withdraw his plea and was sentenced to 138 months in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Braxton's conviction. Relying on last year's decision in Sanya, the court concluded that the district court had improperly participated in plea negotiations in violation of Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. As in Sanya, the court's "commentary was extensive and persistent, and continued unabated" through the day of trial. In addition, Braxton's change of heart came after one of the district court's more pointed bits of commentary (opining that he "shouldn't put his head in a vice and face a catastrophic result"). The error was plain, affected Braxton's substantial rights, and had to be noticed. It was irrelevant that Braxton said, at the time, that he was entering the guilty plea voluntarily. The court also rejected the Government's argument that the district court was drawn into the issue by Braxton's request to represent himself, noting that issue was resolved before the district court really got going on why he should enter a guilty plea.

Erroneous Career Offender Calculation Cannot Be Corrected in 2255 Proceeding

US v. Foote: Recall last year when the Fourth Circuit, in Whiteside, first concluded that an incorrect career offender calculation due to a Simmons error could be remedied in a 2255 proceeding and then, en banc, concluded that it could not. The issue in Whiteside specifically was the technical 2255 issue of whether the motion in that case (filed within a year of Simmons being decided) was timely. Thus, Whiteside didn't technically address the central substantive issue of whether an erroneous career offender designation could be remedied in a 2255 proceeding. Foote takes that issue head on and, unsurprisingly, comes to a similar conclusion.

Foote pleaded guilty to distributing crack. He was classified as a career offender based, in part, on a pair of prior North Carolina drug convictions that, under Fourth Circuit precedent at the time, carried a potential maximum sentence of more than one year in prison. He challenged the career offender determination on appeal (unsuccessfully) and then in a timely 2255 motion. Simmons was decided while Foote's 2255 motion was pending, showing that his priors were not felonies (because he was not subject to a maximum sentence of more than one year) and he was not, therefore, a career offender. The district court denied the motion, but granted a Certificate of Appealability on the issue of whether the error could be remedied in a 2255 proceeding.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded that it could not and affirmed the denial of the 2255 motion. Noting that a sentencing error (that does not impact constitutional or jurisdictional claims) can only be remedied in a 2255 proceeding if the error is "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice," the court concluded that "sentencing a defendant pursuant to advisory Guidelines based on a career offender status that is later invalidated does not meet this remarkably high bar." The court noted that, in general, Guideline errors are not subject to 2255 review in the Fourth Circuit. It also recognized that other circuits had drawn a distinction between career offender errors under a mandatory system (2255 applies) and advisory system (2255 doesn't apply). The court rejected Foote's attempt to stretch the Supreme Court's "actual innocence" cases to include sentencing errors (much less advisory Guideline calculation errors). In conclusion, the court expressed "frustration" at the result (pointing out that Foote had done everything correctly in order to challenge his sentence), but that "the guidance of the Supreme Court and Congress is clear" and it "ties our hands."

NC Second-Degree Kidnapping Is Crime of Violence

US v. Flores-Granados: Flores-Granados was convicted of second-degree kidnapping in North Carolina in 2007, after which he was deported to his native Honduras. In 2013, he was found in Virginia and eventually pleaded guilty to reentering the country illegally. At issue at sentencing was whether his prior conviction was an "aggravated felony" or "crime of violence" under 2L1.2(b)(1), resulting in an enhancement of either 8 or 16 offense levels. The district court concluded that the conviction was a crime of violence, based on the actual facts underlying the conviction (Flores-Granados broke into a home, threatened the use of a gun, and stabbed the victim with a screwdriver) that showed "the type of violent conduct which justifies the 16-point enhancement."

Flores-Granados appealed his sentence, which the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Although it agreed (and the Government conceded) that the district court erred by analyzing the underlying facts of the prior conviction, rather than the elements or (at most) the Shepard-approved documents, the district court's ultimate conclusion was correct. The court noted that kidnapping is a specifically listed "crime of violence" in the Guidelines and that the elements of second-degree burglary as defined by the North Carolina courts, fall within the generic definition of burglary contemplated by the Guidelines. As the court concluded, "[p]ut simply, the statute is what we mean when we say 'kidnapping.'"

Convictions for Somali Pirates Affirmed

US v. Beyle: Beyle and his codefendant, Abrar, were involved in a Somali pirate raid against a US sailboat, the Quest, which resulted in the death of four Americans on board and the intervention of the US Navy. Both were convicted of 26 counts related to the raid, including murder within the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States (which includes the "high seas") and discharge of firearms during a crime of violence and sentenced to multiple life sentences (some concurrent, some consecutive).

Beyle and Abrar both appealed their convictions, on different grounds, which the Fourth Circuit affirmed. As to Beyle, he argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction on the murder and firearm charges because they took place not on the "high seas" but in Somali territorial waters. The raid occurred in the middle of the Indian Ocean, but the Quest was turned by the pirates toward the Somali coast and was about 30 miles from the coast when the Navy intervened. While that was within the "exclusive economic zone" of Somalia, it was not within the more narrowly defined "territorial waters, which, by international treaty (to which Somalia is a party), extend only 12 miles from the coast.

As to Abrar, he argued that he was denied Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights with regard to his defense of duress - that he had been kidnapped and forced to take part in the raid. The court concluded that his inability to subpoena witnesses was not the fault of the United States, but simply due to the fact that the witnesses were foreign nationals residing in other countries. In addition, there was no evidence that the witnesses actually existed. Therefore, Abrar was not prevented from developing and presented a duress defense.

Lifetime Supervised Release Term Reasonable for CP Defendant

US v. Helton: Helton pleaded guilty to being in possession of child pornography. In a statement to police following the seizure of his computer, Helton admitted the possession, denied sharing it with others, and explained that he had "sought treatment in the past." He was sentenced to 60 months in prison, below the advisory Guideline range, and to a lifetime term of supervised release.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Helton's lifetime term of supervised release. First, the court concluded that there were no procedural errors in the imposition of the sentence. It rejected Helton's argument that the district court had not provided sufficient explanation for why a lifetime term of supervised release was "sufficient, but no greater than necessary." In particular, the court stressed that the district court had concluded that a variance for the term of imprisonment was only appropriate "because she knew that Helton would be subject to a lengthy term of supervised release" and that the district court upheld several of Helton's objections to strict optional conditions of supervised release. Second, the court found the lifetime term (which it described as within the statutory and Guideline ranges) was also substantively reasonable, largely for the same reasons.

Judge Gregory wrote a concurring opinion, in which he praised the district court for "display[ing] courage in varying downward" and hoping that "[p]erhaps, in the future, our Guidelines will evolve to become truly proportional to the severity of our crimes."

NOTE: I argued the case on appeal for Helton.

No Prejudice In Failure to Make Jury Perform Pinkerton Analysis

US v. Rangel: Rangel was convicted at trial of various drug charges, including distribution of more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana, which carried a 120-month mandatory minimum sentence. The jury made a finding that the conspiracy involved that much marijuana, but  was not instructed to determine the amount attributable to Rangel himself under a Pinkerton liability analysis. He was sentenced to 121 months in prison, the bottom of the Guideline range. Rangel filed a 2255 motion, arguing that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to request a Pinkerton instruction and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the amount of relevant conduct attributed to Rangel at sentencing. The district court denied the motion.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Rangel's 2255 motion. With regard to the instruction issue, the court agreed (and the Government conceded) that the jury was not properly instructed and should have been required to perform a Pinkerton analysis in rendering a verdict. Therefore, trial counsel's performance fell below the standard required. However, Rangel was unable to show prejudice because he could not show "a reasonable probability of a different result" at sentencing. Reviewing the evidence at trial, the court concluded that "Rangel's sentence would have been the same with a proper jury instruction" in light of the "overwhelming" evidence against him. Furthermore, the district court would have made the same findings with regard to relevant conduct and the Guideline calculation would have been unchanged. The same analysis applied to appellate counsel's performance, as he would have been saddled with plain error review had the issue been raised. Finally, the same prejudice analysis applied to trial counsel's failure to object to the relevant conduct calculations at sentencing.

RICO convictions affirmed

US v. Cornell, et al.:  In this appeal, three members of the Latin Kings based in Greensboro, North Carolina, challenged their convictions for conspiracy to violate RICO, asserting trial errors in the jury instructions and a lack of sufficient evidence to support their convictions.

The defendants made several joint arguments: 1) that the government failed to establish that the RICO enterprise affected interstate commerce; 2) the jury instruction on RICO was erroneous because, in the defendants’ view, the district court was required to charge the jury that it had to unanimously agree upon the specific acts that the co-conspirators engaged in during their conspiracy; and 3) the district court gave improper Allen charges, the second of which coerced the jury into an unfavorable verdict.

The district court applied the “minimal effects” standard to determine whether a RICO conspiracy existed.  The Fourth Circuit panel approved the district court’s approach, based on circuit precedent, despite the defendants’ reliance on a Sixth Circuit case, which held that when a gang is not shown to have conducted considerable economic activity, the government must prove that the RICO enterprise substantially effected interstate commerce.  The panel here found that the Sixth Circuit case was not the law, nor did the panel find that case particularly valid in light of a more recent Supreme Court case to the contrary.  Further, even if the Sixth Circuit case did apply here, the district court found evidence that the RICO conspiracy here involved multiple acts of bank fraud, from a false check scheme, as well as the fact that the gang used their cell phones and carried guns during multiple robberies; all of which were economic activities that would trigger a connection to interstate commerce, according to the Fourth Circuit.

With regard to predicate acts, the Fourth Circuit held that there was no requirement that the district court had to instruct the jury as to specific acts that the conspirators engaged in during the conspiracy.  The panel noted that the Supreme Court has held that the RICO conspiracy statute contains no requirement of some overt or specific act, and that the conspirators merely must agree on the same criminal objective, regardless of whether that objective is acted upon or carried out.  So, the panel held that directing a jury to identify what predicate acts occurred is not required.

The defendants argued that the effect of the Allen charges to the jury was improperly coercive.  The Fourth Circuit panel found the district court did not abuse its discretion in the Allen charges it gave to the jury, after analyzing the language of the instruction, its incorporation with other instructions, the timing of the instruction, and the length of the jury’s subsequent deliberations.  The jury here deliberated some three hours after the second Allen charge before returning a verdict, and the jury returned a split verdict, acquitting three co-defendants and finding predicate acts in 5 out of 9 possible categories submitted for review, indicating that the jury carefully considered the evidence against each defendant.

Two defendants raised separate, individual challenges, regarding trial evidence, specifically the striking of one defense witness’s testimony, the admission of a letter written to one defendant purportedly from a former gang member, as well as whether one defendant, a non-gang-member, was properly included in the conspiracy, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a portion of the jury’s verdict.  The Fourth Circuit panel found no merit in any of these individual claims of error; it affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Cookie cutter sentences for convenience store robbers rejected

US v. Lymas, et al.:  In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered procedural and substantive challenges to three 200-month sentences, ordered to three of the four co-conspirators in a convenience store robbery ring.  Each of the defendants had different criminal histories.  Each had different advisory guidelines ranges.  However, each defendant received the exact same sentence, based upon the district court’s position that the sentencing guideline under-punished the crimes.  The sentences imposed on each defendant amounted to upward variances ranging from 3 months for one, 15 months for the second, and 62 months for the third.

The Fourth Circuit determined that, except for offering its view of the seriousness of the offense that occurred in this case (i.e., robberies that in some instances involved handguns, in one case a juvenile, and some violence), the sentencing court ignored every other statutory factor, and imposed sentences purely based upon the crime rather than the individual defendants.  In imposing these sentences, according to the panel here, the district court rejected not only the Sentencing Commission’s considered judgment as to the appropriate sentence for the crimes, but also the “foundational principles of the Guidelines themselves - - proportionality in sentence, which ‘match[es] punishment with culpability’.”  While the imposition of this sentence may technically be permissible post-Booker, the Fourth Circuit determined that this sort of “wholesale rejection” of the Guidelines requires a “significantly more detailed explanation than” the district court gave here.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the sentences and remanded to the district court for resentencing.

Robbery conspiracy convictions affirmed - cell phone evidence

US v. Reed, et al.:  In this appeal, the four appellants challenged the trial court’s admission of FBI cellular analysis maps from cell phones purportedly belonging to the four, and their service providers’ cell phone towers, as well as the admission other data derived from the appellants’ cell phones.  They also raised a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, generally denying that they committed the crimes because there were no eye witnesses who could identify them and the government’s theories could have been mere coincidences.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed on all counts.

The appellants committed three robberies in and around the greater metropolitan area of Washington D.C. in December 2012.  During their final robbery, they unwittingly took some cash embedded with GPS devices, which lead police directly to the appellants.  The four appellants went to trial.

At trial, the government provided the appellants’ names, rather than phone numbers, when showing locations of the cell phones on a variety of maps (which, they also argued, were not drawn to scale) corresponding with locations of each of the robberies that took place.  Using a process known as “historical cell-cite analysis,” the FBI can extrapolate an area in which a phone was located over time.  This cell phone evidence, admitted at trial, placed at least one of the appellant near the scene of each robbery at the time the robberies occurred.  Appellants argued that this evidence was not properly authenticated, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial.

The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s admission of this evidence for an abuse of discretion, i.e., whether the admission of the evidence was “arbitrary and irrational,” and it found that the district court properly admitted the evidence, as the government provided adequate reason for the jury to believe that the cell phone data could be used to approximate the phones’ locations at pertinent times and that each cell phone was associated with a particular defendant.  In addition to the FBI maps, the photos and text messages, and the labeling of people in the cell phone contacts lists, served to authenticate each phone as belonging to a specific individual.

One of the appellants raised a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause challenge, because no everyone in the chain of custody for his purported cell phone testified at trial, i.e., there was no testimony about who initially seized the phone and where it was taken.  Again, the stored photos and text messages on the cell phone allowed the government to connect the phone to this appellant, so any error that may have occurred in the introduction of the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Drug totals must be proven with facts

US v. Flores-Alvarado:  In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a life sentence (and concurrent 480-month term) for the defendant’s convictions for his part in a drug trafficking conspiracy that purportedly involved over 30,000 kilos of marijuana equivalent.  At issue was whether the district court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the calculation of the defendant’s drug relevant conduct, and the Fourth Circuit determined that it had not, and remanded the case for further specific factual determinations regarding the defendant’s role in the conspiracy, in addition to whether the drug quantities were reasonably foreseeable as to him.

An investigation into the trafficking organizations, which involved multiple sources of both marijuana and cocaine, lead to two main seizures of drugs from houses in Stokesdale, North Carolina and Lexington, Kentucky, described briefly in the PSR.  During two separate sentencing hearings, the Government did not call any witnesses or present any other evidence about the drug quantities in either of these seizures.  The district court relied upon the recitation of events from the PSR, which attributed all seized quantities to the defendant.  At both sentencing hearings, Flores-Alvarado objected to the drug quantities attributed to him, to no avail.

The Fourth Circuit found that the district court clearly erred in failing to resolve the dispute about whether the events as described in the PSR supported attributing the seized amounts to Flores-Alvarado, and it did not make the necessary factual findings to attribute those amounts to him.  When dealing with drug conspiracies, the Fourth Circuit requires lower courts to “make particularized findings with respect to both the scope of the defendant’s agreement and the foreseeability of [the conduct at issue].”  The Fourth Circuit concluded that the PSR did not contain facts sufficient to show that the seized drug quantities were within the scope of Flores-Alvarado’s criminal activity, that the district court failed to make any findings on that “critical” point, and consequently, the Fourth Circuit was unable to review the issue.

Denial of Mens Rea Can Lead to Loss of Acceptance

US v. Burns: Burns got in a beef with Poole at a convenience store.  The next day, according to Burns's fiance, he wanted "to kill" Poole for "jumping him at the store."  Burns (and his fiance) was in a parked car later that day when he saw Poole (and others) in another car.  According to the fiance, Burns got out, confronted Poole, returned to the car and got his gun, telling her "I'm going to shoot him."  She also testified that Burns either said "I'm going to shoot that motherfucker" or said to Poole, "motherfucker, I'm going to kill you."  After one of Poole's passengers got out of the car, Burns shot once into the car (no one was hurt).  Poole sped away, initially pursued by Burns, who later broke off the chase.

Burns pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.  The PSR recommended that his Guideline range be calculated based on a cross reference to murder Guideline.  With a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, his Guideline range was 92-115 months.  Burns objected to those calculations.  Although he admitted possessing the gun and firing it in the car, he denied having the mens rea needed to support an (attempted) murder cross reference, as opposed to aggravated assault.  The district court not only overruled that objection and applied the murder cross reference, but concluded that Burns had falsely denied relevant conduct and did not award a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.  As a result, Burns's Guideline range was 120 months - the statutory maximum.  That was the sentence he received.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Burns's sentence.  The court styled the issue by asking "is acting with a particular mental state relevant conduct within the meaning of USSG 1B1.3(a)(1)(A)?"  The court concluded that it was, rejecting Burns's argument to restrict relevant conduct to only physical actions.  That reading was inconsistent with earlier Fourth Circuit law approving of cross references for attempt (which is all about mens rea) based on "acts or omissions" of the defendant.  Thus, "when Burns denied his 'acts and omissions' including shooting with intent to kill, he denied relevant conduct attributable to him."

Court Rejects Jury Instructions In Marriage Fraud Case

US v. Sonmez: Sonmez came to the United States on a tourist visa in 2000 but remained past its expiration date.  In 2008 he wed Eckloff and sought a green card based on marriage to a US citizen.  The green card was never awarded and eventually an investigation led to Albrecht, who told investigators of a scheme where citizens would marry nationals from the Middle East in order favorably impact their immigration status.  She had introduced Eckloff to Sonmez, who were married two weeks later.  Both Sonmez and Eckloff were charged with marriage fraud, but Eckloff pleaded guilty and testified against Sonmez.  She testified that received $2000 for marrying Sonmez and that they never had a romantic or sexual relationship with each other.  Sonmez testified that the relationship was real, had lasted six months prior to marriage, and the marriage was "real" for him.  He was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Sonmez's conviction.  Sonmez argued that the district court had erred by not giving two requested instructions to the jury, one that required the Government to prove that Sonmez's "only reason" for marrying was the obtain a green card and one that required proof that he and Eckloff had "no intent to establish a life together."  Instead, the court instructed the jury that the Government had to prove that the marriage was "entered into for the purpose of evading" US immigration laws.  The court found that Sonmez's requested instructions were properly rejected because they were improper statements of the law.

Analysis of SORNA Priors Involves Fact-Intensive Approach

US v. Price: Price pleaded guilty 2010 to "assault and batter of a high and aggravated nature" in South Carolina.  The basis for the charge was the claim that Price had forced a 12-year old girl to perform oral sex on him, as set forth during the plea hearing.  After his sentence was finished, Price moved to several different states, eventually returning to South Carolina.  Generally, during this time, he was not registering as a sex offender.  As a result, he was charged in South Carolina with failing to register under SORNA.  Price moved to dismiss, arguing that his prior conviction wasn't a "sex offense" as defined by SORNA.  Looking to the facts of the prior conviction the district court denied the motion.  Price entered  a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 24 months in prison and a lifetime term of supervised release.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Price's conviction by vacated his sentence.  On the conviction the court framed the issue as whether the categorical or circumstance-specific approach was appropriate in determining whether a prior offense was a "sex offense" under SORNA (the modified categorical approach was out because the court had earlier found the relevant South Carolina offense indivisible).  The court concluded the circumstance-specific approach - which allows the district court (or jury) to examine the underlying facts of the offense - was appropriate for two reasons.  First, the text, structure, and purpose of SORNA supported that conclusion because of it's references to "conduct" and the "nature" of the offense, rather than elements of a generic conviction.  Second, the Sixth Amendment concerns that animated the categorical approach in sentencing contexts was not present here because the Government bore the burden of proving a prior offense was a "sex offense" to a jury if the defendant went to trial.  On the sentence, the court applied the recent Collins decision, concluding that the district court incorrectly concluded that the supervised release Guideline range was life and remanding for resentencing.

Proper consideration of rehab at sentencing

US v. Lemon - In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit heard a sentencing challenge from Appellant Lemon, who argued that the district court plainly erred when it considered her rehabilitative needs during sentencing, or violated the Tapia rule.  In 2008, Lemon pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and she received a 30-month prison sentence, to be followed by three years of supervised release.  Five months into her term of supervision, police arrested Lemon for several instances of forging checks.

The violation report completed by Lemon’s probation officer recommended imprisonment for 24 months, based on the guidelines and the nature of the violations.  At her final revocation hearing, the district court adopted the government’s recommendation of a within-guidelines sentence of 24 months, discussing its perception of Lemon’s mental health, that she must “have a serious emotional problem” with the repetitive nature of Lemon’s criminal activity, and that Lemon needed rehabilitative mental health treatment.

In interpreting Tapia, the Fourth Circuit has held that courts may consider rehabilitation, as long as the court is not imposing or lengthening a sentence to further rehabilitation.  The Fourth Circuit has also held that Tapia applies in the supervised release context.

Here, the panel held that there was no error committed, because the district court did not indicated that its concern for Lemon’s mental health was a factor in determining the length of her sentence, that the court stated it was not even sure that Lemon could receive mental health treatment as a part of her incarceration, and that the rationale for her sentence had nothing to do with Lemon’s mental health, but her tendency to re-offend, and protect the public from further crimes.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed her 24-month supervised release revocation sentence, advising district courts to separate any discussion of rehabilitative needs from its discussion of the factors that influence sentencing.

Mandatory consecutive life sentence under 18 U.S.C. sect. 924(j) affirmed

US v. Bran - Appellant Bran, alleged leader of a violent MS-13 clique, was convicted of three counts related to the murder of one person, and two further counts in relation to the attempted murder of a second person.  In his appeal, Bran challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of Count 3, which charged him with conspiracy to commit murder under 18 U.S.C. sect. 924(j), and for the district court’s imposition of a mandatory consecutive life sentence for that conviction.

In count 3, Bran was charged under three criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. sects. 924(c)(1)(A), 924(j)(1) and 2; the first of these prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense or crime of violence, or possession of a firearm in furtherance of one of those crimes, and violation of the statute carries a minimum of five years’ imprisonment, which must run consecutively to any other sentence.  Under the second statute, 924(j), any person who causes the death of another through the use of a firearm in the course of committing a violation of the first statute, 924(c), could receive the death penalty or imprisonment for 10 years to life.

With respect to the relationship between sects. 924(c) and 924(j), the Fourth Circuit held that because Congress made 924(j) separate from 924(c), it must have intended for 924(j) to have the effect of enhancing the sentence imposed for a conviction under 924(c).  To interpret otherwise, according to the panel, would lead to the conclusion that a person with a 924(c) conviction which resulted in murder could receive a more lenient sentence than if the murder never occurred.  Further, the panel held that four out of the five circuits that considered this issue have held that 924(j) requires mandatory consecutive sentencing.

In contrast, the dissent of this case disagreed with the majority about the nature of the relationship between these two statutes, finding that 924(j) is discrete from 924(c), and the express statutory mandate of 924(c) should not be applied to 924(j). Secondly, Congress enacted 924(j) to “extend the death penalty to second-degree murders,” which does not result in a more lenient sentencing scheme, so 924(j) should not be interpreted as requiring mandatory consecutive sentencing.

4th Circuit considers privacy interests in one's home during term of supervision

US v. Hill, et al.   - In this appeal, three folks on terms of supervised release raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to a probation officer’s walk-through and a dog-sniff of an apartment where one of the folks had purportedly moved.  A United States Probation officer suspected supervisee Eric Barker of moving without notification, and obtained an arrest warrant for Barker, executing it at his alleged new apartment.  Once there, the probation officer discovered Barker and two others living or staying there, both also serving terms of supervised release, and conducted a protective sweep.  After all three folks were arrested and the sweep concluded, the probation officers conducted a further walk-through and dog sniff, during which time the dog alerted and the officers found further evidence of supervised release violations.

Barker and the two others, Robert Hill and Megan Dunigan, claimed on appeal that the walk-through and dog sniff violated the individuals’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, and under Fourth Circuit precedent, a search warrant should have been obtained before the advanced searches, beyond the protective sweep, were conducted.  The Fourth Circuit agreed.  Though all three individuals were subject to the standard condition that required them to “permit a Probation Officer to visit him or her at any time, at home or elsewhere, and [to] permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view,” probation officers must comply with the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

As the legal basis for its decision, the Fourth Circuit panel used United States v. Bradley from 1978, wherein defendant Bradley was on parole with a condition requiring him allow his parole officer to visit his home or place of employment, and no parole condition required Bradley to consent to searches.  Acting on a tip, Bradley’s parole officer went to Bradley’s boarding house, searched his room, and located a firearm.  The Fourth Circuit held that the parole officer should have obtained a search warrant, even where the parolee has consented to periodic and unannounced visits by the parole officer.  Hence, there was an agreement to home visits by a probation officer, but not warrantless searches.  Further, the Fourth Circuit panel found here that Bradley still controls, and that law enforcement officers may not search the home of an individual on supervised release who is not subject to a warrantless search condition, unless the officers have a warrant supported by probable cause.

The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for an evaluation of whether the information gained during the illegal searches affected the officer’s decision to seek a warrant.

Simmons-Fueled Career Offender Error Cannot Be Vacated By 2255 Motion

US v. Whiteside: Whiteside was sentenced as a career offender based on a pair of North Carolina convictions.  After Simmons, those convictions are no longer felonies.  Whiteside filed a 2255 motion within a year after Simmons was decided seeking to vacate his sentence.  The district court denied the motion, for various reasons.  On appeal, a panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that Whiteside had not waived his right to file the motion, that it was timely because it was filed within a year of Simmons and, at any rate, equitable tolling applied.  The panel also concluded that Whiteside prevailed on the merits and ordered his sentence vacated.

The Government sought rehearing and the full Fourth Circuit reversed the panel, affirming the denial of Whiteside's motion.  In doing so, the en banc court (Judge Wilkinson writing the opinion) did not reach the merits, but concluded that Whiteside's motion was not timely filed.  Although it was filed within a year of Simmons, the court concluded that Simmons only stated new law, and would not constitute a new "fact" which restarted the one-year statute of limitations in 2255.  The court distinguished between a situation where a prior conviction itself was vacated - it's nonexistence is a "fact" - and a legal change that renders the still extant conviction different in kind.  The en banc court also concluded that equitable tolling did not apply, noting that although it might have been futile for Whiteside to file a 2255 on these grounds before Simmons, other defendants had done so (Simmons, for one).

Judge Gregory dissented, joined by Judge Davis, arguing that the majority had misconstrued its ability to act equitably (in light of recent Supreme Court precedent) and that it "is simply unjust to deny someone the opportunity to receive a properly calculated sentence."  He also argues that the majority places too much weight on concerns about finality, noting the recent waves of amendments to the Guidelines that have been made retroactive.  Judge Wynn also dissented, arguing (by quoting Judge Wilkinson from 2012) that the opinion would "drive citizens to rub[] their eyes and scratch[] their heads" and that if the "objectively reasonable person on the street" was asked whether a court could fix this mistake the "response would be 'Of course.  Why do you ask?'"

Court Affirms Denial of 2255 Motion With Selective Prosecution Claim

US v. Mason: Mason was driving a car in Georgia when it was stopped for having overly tinted windows.  The trooper also suspected that Mason and his passenger were up to something because he did not pull over immediately, there was a strong air freshener smell from the car, their stories about where they were going differed, and "there was no visible luggage."  The trooper requested back up and a drug dog, noting that "these guys are spooky, spooky."  He later said that he "felt like we were fixing to have a violent confrontation" because Mason and his passenger were "older black males that are not in good shape" and they were likely "ready to shoot it out."  Mason refused to consent to search.  The drug dog arrived (after Mason got a ticket for the tint), alerted and 10 kilograms of cocaine was found in the trunk.

Mason was charged in South Carolina was conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine.  After the district court denied his motion to suppress, he went to trial, where the passenger was the primary witness against him.  In addition, a recording of a conversation between Mason and the passenger in the back seat of the cop car was introduced.  During closing argument, the Government argued that in the conversation Mason didn't express much surprise at the cocaine being found in the trunk.  The jury convicted Mason and he was sentenced to life in prison.  His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.  Mason filed a 2255 motion alleging that his trial and appellate attorney had been ineffective, which the district court denied.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Mason's 2255 motion.  The court rejected Mason's argument that counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a claim that he was subject to "racially selective law enforcement," calling such a claim "a long shot," particularly when compared to the Fourth Amendment argument that counsel did raise.  Mason could point to no Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit cases where such a claim had been successful.  Nor did the district court err by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue.  The court also rejected Mason's argument that trial counsel was ineffective for not properly challenging the Government's use of his post-arrest behavior during closing argument.  The recorded conversation was done after Miranda warnings were given, was not custodial, and had no police involvement at all.

Judge Gregory concurred and dissented, arguing that Mason's trial counsel was ineffective for not even investigating the potential equal protection claim, based on the testimony of the officer during the suppression hearing.

District Court "Repeated and Direct" Urging that Defendant Accept Plea Bargain Is Plain Error

US v. Sanya: Sanya ran a credit card fraud scheme, to which he pleaded guilty in federal court July 2012.  He was released on bond pending sentencing.  Six weeks later he was arrested after having restarted the fraud scheme.  He was charged in federal court again, this time with multiple charges including access device fraud and aggravated identity theft.  The Government quickly offered a plea bargain that would allow the sentencings for the original conviction and the new charges to take place at the same time.  Sanya rejected the offer initially, but after the district court opined at a detention hearing about the benefits of doing so, Sanya changed his mind.  After entering a guilty plea, he was sentenced to a total (on both convictions) of 212 months in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated his second set of convictions because of the district court's insertion of itself into plea negotiations.  Applying plain error review, the court found that the district court erred (as the Government conceded) and that the error was plain (as the Government did not).  As to whether the error affected Sanya's substantial rights, the court concluded that the record showed a "reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea," including his initial refusal of the offer, the breadth of the district court's commentary, and the swiftness with which Sanya changed his mind (he signed a plea agreement five days after the hearing).  The court distinguished the Government's reliance on cases taken from other jurisdictions, raised mostly in a series of five Rule 28(j) letters filed in three weeks ("perhaps a record," the court notes).  Finally, the court concluded that the error was of the kind that it should notice, observing that the district court's comments were "repeated and direct" and that its "exhortations saturated the hearing."

Labyrinthine sex offender registration requirements confound another defendant

US v. Collins - In this appeal, Dwaine Collins challenged his failure to register conviction on the grounds that the government failed to prove that he knew he had an obligation to register.

Collins, an illiterate man, committed the offense that triggered his 10-year registration obligation in 1998 in North Carolina.  After his release from prison, Collins relocated to Ohio where he registered.  In 2002, Collins failed to register, and moved to Parkersburg, WV.  Nine years later, he was arrested in Ohio for an attempted theft, and he received a state failure to register charge dating back to 2002.  A state court judge in Ohio had suggested to Collins in his state court proceeding that the time period for registration could have expired.  After serving a state sentence in Ohio, Collins returned to WV, where he did not register.  Approximately a year and a half later, he received the instant federal indictment for failing to register under SORNA.

The district court determined that Collins knowingly failed to register, finding ample evidence of Collins’ knowing avoidance of his obligation to register.  It held that the knowledge element of the SORNA offense was satisfied as long as Collins knew that he had to register under some scheme, federal or state, but not SORNA specifically.  The district court also determined that the state court judge was merely advising Collins, not giving him a binding legal opinion on Collins’ registration requirements going forward.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings.

Collins also appealed the reasonableness of his sentence.  He received a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a term of supervised release of 10 years.   Pursuant to the Sentencing Commission’s recent clarifying amendment that the supervised release term associated with a SORNA offense is not a “sex offense,” the Fourth Circuit vacated the supervised release portion of Collins’ sentence and remanded for further proceedings.

Appellant liable as both principal and accessory after the fact

US v. White - In this case, Appellant White received three 78-month concurrent terms of imprisonment for his part(s) in the intentional burning of a two-unit apartment building he owned.  He received convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and mail fraud, aiding and abetting arson, and accessory after the fact to arson.  White made two sufficiency of the evidence challenges: 1) that the government failed to establish the interstate commerce nexus required to sustain the arson convictions of counts 1 and 2; and 2) that the evidence did not establish that he assisted an uncharged co-conspirator in evading apprehension and punishment for the accessory-after-the-fact conviction.  White further challenged his sentence, that the court should not have considered the two-unit apartment house a “dwelling”, which increased his base offense level.    The Fourth Circuit affirmed, 2-1, with a dissent from Justice Wynn, finding that, as a matter of law, a person should not be held criminal liable as both a principal and an accessory after the fact to him or herself, and the defendant’s conviction for being an accessory after the fact constitutes clear legal error.

In upholding the conviction for accessory after the fact, the Fourth Circuit discussed the government’s case, that it presented evidence of White’s false and misleading statement to an insurance representative to help an unnamed co-conspirator to avoid apprehension, which satisfying the elements of the crime.  It based its decision on a 1999 case from the 5th Circuit, which, according to Justice Wynn, “failed to acknowledge, let alone analyze, the conundrum of allowing a principal to be convicted of acting as an accessory after the fact to himself.”

(Decided November 17, 2014).

Change in law after sentencing would likely have resulted in lesser sentence

US v. Archie - In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed two sentencing issues: 1) whether the district court sentenced the defendant in violation of the 6th Amendment as set forth in Alleyne; and 2) whether the district court relied incorrectly on insufficient evidence in enhancing the defendant’s sentence under ACCA.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Appellant Sherwin Archie pleaded guilty to charges arising from his part in the armed robbery of a Family Dollar store.  In anticipation of sentencing, the Probation Officer drafted a PSR, designating Archie an armed career criminal, based on three prior felony convictions: 1977 3rd degree robbery conviction from New York; 1983 attempted burglary conviction from New York; and a 1994 conviction from North Carolina for assault.  There was also evidence that Archie “brandished” a weapon in the armed robbery, and the district court made a judicial finding of brandishing, which raised the statutory minimum for Archie’s sentence.

Archie’s main issue on appeal is whether he waived the right to argue that his sentence was improperly enhanced by the district court’s determination that he brandished a weapon during the armed robbery, with the appellate waiver in his plea agreement.  Archie’s sentencing occurred just prior to the publication of the Supreme Court’s case Alleyne, which held that because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for crimes, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an “element” of the crime that must be submitted to a jury.  

The Fourth Circuit found that, at the time of Archie’s sentencing, that the district court correctly applied the law that judicial factfinding that increases a mandatory minimum was permissible under the 6th Amendment.  Even though Alleyne soon overruled this position, the post-sentencing change in the law did not invalidate Archie’s appeal waiver, according to the Fourth Circuit.  The panel determined that Archie assumed the risk that the law under which he was sentenced could change later on, and that Archie’s appeal issue was buyer’s remorse.  Further, the Fourth Circuit has invalidated some appellate waivers in the past, but it chose not to do so here because the sentencing court did not violate “a fundamental constitutional or statutory right that was firmly established at the time of sentencing.”  

Next, Archie argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of the 1977 3rd degree robbery conviction, as the court had relied upon computerized records to establish the fact of this conviction.  Of the four records the district court considered, one of the records had an inconsistent date.  The district court disagreed and determined that the records provided established by a preponderance the conviction.  On appeal, the Fourth Circuit determined that it had previously considered the issue of what records a district court may consider in determining the fact of a prior conviction and that certified computer printouts, such as the ones submitted here by the Government, were sufficient to prove the fact of a prior conviction.

(Decided November 17, 2014).

960-month sentence survives 8th Amendment challenge

US v. Dowell - In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered the propriety of a 960-month sentence, and whether the sentence violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment on the grounds that the sentence was disproportionate to the severity of his crimes, and secondly, whether the district court correctly applied an enhancement for a “vulnerable victim” here.

The Fourth Circuit recently rejected a similar as-applied 8th Amendment challenge in Cobler, where it had upheld a 1440-month sentence on a child porn offender whose appeal argument was indistinguishable from Dowell’s here.  Cobler had, in fact, been convicted of fewer counts than Dowell.  In Cobler, the Fourth Circuit determined that Cobler’s “shocking and vile conduct...failed to substantiate the threshold inference of gross disproportionality” and that Cobler’s crimes were “at least as grave” as possession of 672 grams of cocaine, which the Supreme Court had considered sufficiently egregious to justify a similar sentence (see Harmelin v. Michigan).   The Fourth Circuit decided not to change that course in this case.  Moreover, the 960-month sentence imposed was within the guidelines range of life imprisonment.

The Fourth Circuit found that the application of the “vulnerable victim” enhancement here was in error, but it was a harmless one.  The district court applied the enhancement relying solely on age-related factors, which was an error.  However, the application of the enhancement here did not affect Dowell’s ultimate sentence, so the Fourth Circuit found the error was harmless.

(Decided November 13, 2014).

Illegal reentry sentence enhancement affirmed

US v. Avila  - In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered two procedural challenges the appellant made after his sentencing for illegal reentry.  First, he argued that the 8-level sentencing enhancement he received for having a prior conviction for 1st degree burglary in California was incorrect; and second, he argued that the district court’s explanation for his sentence was insufficient.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Avila argued that the California 1st degree burglary should not qualify as an aggravated felony for the 8-level enhancement because it is not a crime of violence under Descamps’ analysis.  The Fourth Circuit found that under ACCA, this offense may not qualify as a predicate offense; however, for the enhancement here under a different statutory scheme than ACCA (to wit, 18 U.S.C. § 16), it does qualify as the definition of crime of violence in this context is more general.  Further, other courts have come to the conclusion that 1st degree burglary in California is a crime of violence, as it requires entry into an inhabited dwelling, and it presents a substantial risk of force with or without unlawful entry.

With regard to Avila’s second appeal issue, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for his sentence, by considering his history and characteristics, and that the safety of the public was the “driving reason” for the sentence it chose.

(Decided November 4, 2014).

Life Plus 60-Month Sentence Substantively Unreasonable

US v. Howard: Howard sold PCP in North Carolina, as evidenced by a string of controlled buys made from him by police.  He was charged, tried, and convicted of conspiracy to distribute, substantive distribution (nine counts), and possession of  a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.  All while on supervised release for a prior federal conviction.  In the PSR, Howard's advisory Guideline range was calculated as 78 to 97 months, although he faced a mandatory minimum 120-month sentence due to his prior conviction.

But Howard's sentence only rose from there.  First, the district court attributed more PCP to Howard, bumping his Guideline range up to 120 to 121 months.  Next, the Government requested a variance based on the Guidelines' undrerepresentation of Howard's criminal history, up to a Criminal History Category VI, bumping the range to 140 to 175 months.  The district court, "not satisfied," decided sua sponte that Howard was a de facto career offender and, after applying that Guideline, bumped Howard's range up to 420 months to life.  The district court sentenced Howard to life in prison on the drug counts, followed by a consecutive 60-month sentence on the gun count.  He also received a consecutive 60-month sentence following the revocation of his supervised release.

Howard appealed, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence when requested to do so by the court.*  The Fourth Circuit found that Howard's sentence - life plus 60 months - was substantively unreasonable.  The "extent of the upward departure is unwarranted and amounts to an abuse of discretion" and "is not justified by consideration of the 3553(a) factors as articulated by the district court."  Specifically, the district court "abused its discretion by focusing too heavily on Howard's juvenile criminal history."  That history showed that "most of his serious criminal convictions occurred when he was eighteen years old or younger."  Looking to the Supreme Court's recent cases dealing with juvenile death penalties, the court noted that "in the sentencing context, the diminished culpability of juvenile offenders, given their lack of maturity, vulnerability to social pressures, and malleable identities."  The district court failed to address those issues.  The court also rejected the district court's conclusion that Howard's chance of recidivism was "[a]bsolutely 100 percent" by looking to his age, the age at which he might be released, and noting that recidivism declines as a person ages.  Finally, the court noted that the sentence imposed by the district court was well above what the Government recommended.  While not controlling, the experience of AUSAs can help achieve one of the key goals of the Sentencing Reform Act - avoiding unwanted disparities.

The court vacated Howard's sentence and remanded for further proceedings.  In doing so, it pointed out that it "goes without saying, then, that our holding is limited to the facts of this case."

* Although he initially appealed the supervised release sentence as well, Howard withdrew that issue and that appeal was dismissed.  Howard also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, an argument the court rejected.

Supervised release revocation sentence related back to initial offense, and Alleyne does not apply in revocation proceedings

US v. Ward:  In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered whether George Ward’s supervised release revocation sentence was imposed under the proper version of the statute governing terms of supervised release, whether the federal Savings Statute required a different result, and whether Alleyne applied in the supervised release context.

Ward pleaded guilty in December 1994 to several offenses that occurred between December 1993 and June 1994, receiving a sentence of 260 months (later reduced to 200 months) to be followed by 5 years of supervised release.  At the time of the sentence reduction Ward received, the court expressly left intact the original duration and conditions of his term of supervised release.  Ward left prison in 2010, and in April 2013, the government filed a petition to revoke his supervised release.  At his revocation hearing, Ward admitted the violations, and the district court sentenced Ward to a mandatory sentence, one-third of his supervised release term, pursuant to the version of the supervised release statute in place when Ward committed his original crimes.  The statute was amended prior to Ward’s original sentencing in 1994, but after his initial criminal activity.  At sentencing, the district court noted the harsh result, but that its hands were tied by the mandatory punishment called for by the old version of the statute.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed and held that Ward was subject to the mandatory minimum term under the old version of the supervised release statute (20 months’ imprisonment based on the original 5-year term) because his criminal activity took place while the old statute was in effect. The Supreme Court considered a similar scenario in 2000, in Johnson v. United States, and determined that the defendant was subject to the sentencing provisions of the pre-amendment statute in effect when the initial offense was committed, that “postconviction penalties relate to the original offense.”  Further, the federal Savings Statute, according to the Fourth Circuit, operated to preserve the mandatory minimum punishment provision of the old supervised release statute.

Finally, the Fourth Circuit held that Alleyne’s holding, requiring that a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt any fact requiring imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence, did not apply to the supervised release revocation context.  It discussed how other courts have persuasively held that the constitutional protections afforded individuals in criminal trials are not similarly applicable in the postconviction context, such as supervised release revocation proceedings.  Individuals on supervised release, according to the panel, possess only “conditional liberty” on account of their convictions on an underlying offense, whereas defendants at trial have not yet been subjected to any deprivation of their liberties.  Thus, a defendant in a postconviction revocation proceeding does not have the constitutional right to a trial by jury under the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lack of Loss Amount In Verdict Leads to Misdemeanor; Lack of Proof to Limited Remand

US v. Catone: Catone was charged with three counts related to federal workers comp fraud, essentially for receiving income while receiving benefits and not informing the proper authorities.  At trial, the main evidence of this fraud was a $635 check that Catone had received from a local maintenance service.  The jury convicted on one count of filing a false form under 18 USC 1920.  Catone's relevant conduct was identified as over $128,000 dollars (everything he ever got for worker's comp, in essence) and his restitution obligation at over $106,000.  Catone argued that his offense was a misdemeanor, capped at one year of imprisonment, because the jury did not make a finding as to a particular loss amount.  The district court disagreed, sentencing Catone to a 16-month term of imprisonment and ordering him to pay the entire restitution amount.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Catone's conviction, but reversed his sentence.  As to his conviction, the court rejected (reviewing for plain error) his argument that the Government violated Brady by withholding a particular document, noting that (a) it was a document Catone signed and therefore was aware of, (b) was public and could have been uncovered by diligent investigation, and (c) wouldn't have changed the verdict anyway.  As to the sentence, the court first held that the 16-month term of imprisonment was over the one-year statutory maximum for a misdemeanor offense.  Section 1920 defines two offenses, based on the amount of loss involved - a misdemeanor ($1000 or less) and a felony (more than $1000).  Because the amount of loss increases the statutory maximum offense, it was an element of the offense that had to be charged in the indictment and found by the jury.  As it was not, Catone's sentence had to be vacated.  Turning to the loss and restitution amounts, the court found that the district court failed to apply the proper analysis (as the Government conceded) in calculating those amounts, thus requiring reversal.  But the court went further: "Because there is no evidence in the record that could support a loss amount exceeding $5,000, we direct the district court on remand to resentence Catone under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1)(A), without any offense-level enhancements for loss amount."  In other words, the court denied the Government a chance at a "do over" on remand.

Congrats to the Defender office in Western North Carolina on the win!

No Pretrial Motion = No Suppression Review

US v. Moore: Moore was apprehended by Maryland police after running from an officer (who was interested in Moore because he might have been walking in public with an open beer).  Moore tossed a package into a dumpster during his flight which contained $10,000 worth of cocaine.  While Moore was in jail, his apartment was burglarized.  A subsequent search (conducted pursuant to a warrant) uncovered drugs, paraphernalia, $45,000 in cash, and two guns.  Moore was charged with multiple offenses, including possessing a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime.  Just prior to closing arguments at his bench trial, Moore moved to suppress "all the tangible evidence" because the original officer who wanted to talk to Moore lacked reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop.  The district court denied the motion and convicted Moore on all counts.  He was sentenced to 271 months in prison.

Moore appealed both the denial of his motion to suppress and his firearm conviction, but the Fourth Circuit rejected his arguments.  On the suppression issue, the court noted that Rule 12 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires such motions to be made before trial and the failure to do so waives the ability to file such motions unless "good cause" is shown.  The court concluded that the district court found no good cause to excuse waiver and there was none in this case, rejecting the argument that it was based only on evidence that came to light at trial.  On the firearm conviction, the court found there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate a nexus between the firearm and a drug trafficking offense.

Pre-Jones Warrantless GPS Attachment Doesn't Require Suppression

US v. Stephens: Stephens was the subject of an investigation by a Baltimore area state/local drug task force.  As part of that investigation, officers installed a GPS tracker on Stephens's car.  They did not have a warrant to do so.  Officers then used a combination of the GPS tracker and surveillance to intercept Stephens, who they believed to be armed, at a club when he arrived there.  Stephens was only carrying an empty holster, but a gun was found in his car (after a drug dog alerted).  Stephens was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.  Afterwards, the Supreme Court decided Jones, concluding that placing a GPS tracker on someone's car constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.  Stephens moved to suppress the gun.  The district court concluded that search was unreasonable under Jones, but declined to suppress the firearm because the officers were acting in good faith.  Stephens entered a conditional guilty plea.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, 2-1.  Relying largely on US v. Knotts and its progeny in the lower courts, the court concluded that "a significant body of federal law existed nationally in 2011 to support the view that warrantless attachment of a GPS . . . was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."  In addition, the Maryland courts had expressly found that to be the case.  Against that background, the court rejected Stephens's argument that because the Fourth Circuit hadn't specifically OK'd warrantless GPS searches pre-Jones there could be no good faith on the officers' behalf.  Davis, the Supreme Court decision from which Stephens took this "negative implication" did not "alter the general good-faith inquiry," only provide one situation in which good faith was evident.  At any rate, the court concluded that Knotts was controlling at the time of the search and, thus, officers were acting in good faith compliance with it, even though Knotts was "not exactly on point," because "it is the legal principle of Knotts, rather than the precise factual circumstances, that matters."

Judge Thacker dissented, arguing that exclusion was proper where officers "relied on non-binding, non-precedential authority regarding emerging technology -- without first bothering to seek legal guidance -- in order to conduct a warrantless search which spanned . . . nearly two months."  She noted that Davis was all about binding authority and that Justice Sotomayor pointed out, in her concurrence, that "whether the exclusionary rule applies when the law governing the constitutionality of a particular search is unsettled" is a "markedly different question."  That was the case at the time of this search, Judge Thacker argues, noting that Knotts is easily distinguished because the beeper (hardly a modern GPS tracker) in that case had been placed in the suspect cargo with the owner's permission.  As a result, the officers didn't act in an "objectively reasonable" manner suggestive of good faith.

Stash House Robbery Conspiracy Convictions Affirmed, Sentence Vacated

US v. McLaurin: McLaurin sold two guns to a CI and, after the offer of a third sale, was introduced to undercover officers who recruited him to be part of a "stash house robbery."  That is, to rob drug dealers of their product in bulk and then sell it themselves.  McLaurin said he was interested and had committed a "similar" robbery in the past.  He also talked about the need to acquire a gun, since he had sold his.  After a couple of weeks passed, McLaurin contacted the officers and arranged a meeting to discuss the robbery.  He brought along Lowery, his codefendant, to this meeting.  At the meeting, they discussed what weaponry would be needed and how the take from the robbery would be split.  On the appointed day, the defendants and the officers met at a storage area that was to be the staging area for the robbery.  Instead, McLaurin and Lowery were arrested and charged with multiple conspiracy counts.  They were convicted on all counts, with McLaurin also being convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On appeal, both defendants challenged their conviction, which McLaurin challenging his sentence as well.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions, but vacated McLaurin's sentence.  On the convictions, the court first found that the district court had correctly instructed the jury that inducement, in the context of an entrapment defense, "is a term of art necessitating government overreaching," which the defendants argued allowed the jury to rejected their defense based on a "non-factual, value-laden determination" while avoiding "the corse issue of an entrapment defense - predisposition."  Read in conjunction with the rest of the entrapment instructions, the court held that language did no remove predisposition and only "elaborated on the circumstances that can be considered inducement."  The court also affirmed the district court's admission of prior bad act evidence against McLaurin (the earlier robbery) and Lowery (firearm possession).  Finally, the court concluded that the district court's decision to deny McLaurin's motion to sever his felon in possession counts was not error and, if it was, not harmless, as the evidence underlying those charges were admissible under FRE 404(b).  As to McLaurin's sentence, the court found that the district court erred by including two robberies committed as a juvenile in McLaurin's criminal history calculation.  Although limited to plain error review, the court found the error plain, affecting substantial rights, and in need of notice.

Judge Floyd dissented in part, arguing that the district court erred in not granting McLaurin's motion to sever and that the error was not harmless.

Post-Jeopardy Notice of Appeal Don't Give Circuit Court Jurisdiction

US v. Modanlo: Modanlo was charged in ten counts of an 11-count indictment with aiding the 2005 launch of an Iranian communications satellite, via a state-owned Russian consortium.  He was also charged with obstructing bankruptcy proceedings that arose out of that scheme.  Prior to trial, Modanlo moved to dismiss the obstruction count, arguing that the dismissal of the bankruptcy actions constitued collateral estopell and prevented the Government from prosecuting him.  That motion was denied.  Modanlo filed a notice of appeal after his trial had been going on for 12 days (the district court only issued its written opinion six days in, although it had denied it orally pretrial).  The district court denied the Government's motion to label the appeal frivolous, but refused to sever the obstruction count from the rest of the case.  Modanlo filed a notice of appeal from that decision as well.  Modanlo was convicted on all counts  but one and sentenced to 96 months in prison.  He has filed an appeal from the convictions and sentence, although it hasn't reached the briefing stage yet.

The Fourth Circuit dismissed both of Modanlo's appeals, concluding that the notices of appeal he filed didn't confer jurisdiction upon it.  His "premature appeals . . . are a nullity and must be dismissed."  The court noted that jurisidiction cannot be divested from the district court once trial has begun and jeopardy has attached.  Although the issue Modanlo initially sought to appeal could be the subject of an interlocutory appeal that could have stayed proceedings in the district court, that is true only if the notice of appeal had been filed before trial began.  However, since the order denying Modanlo's motion to dismiss was not entered prior to trial, Modanlo's only option was to wait until a final judgment had been entered and seek appeal from there.  To be fair, the Fourth Circuit pointed out that the district court messed up by not entering that order before trial, but given that Modanlo didn't challenge the failure to do so, he was precluded from trying to appeal the order once it was entered.

Prior conviction is predicate for sentencing enhancement in illegal reentry case

US v. Valdovinos:  In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considers a novel issue, whether a prior conviction under North Carolina’s Structured Sentence Act, imposed after a binding plea agreement to a sentence of less than one year, is a predicate felony offense for purposes of the sentencing enhancement applicable to those convicted of illegal reentry after deportation.  Valdovinos pleaded guilty in North Carolina state court in 2008 to selling heroin, a conviction which carried a maximum penalty of 16 months in prison; by virtue of Valdovinos’ plea agreement, however, he received a sentence of 10-12 months.  Under NC law, once the judge accepted the plea, the judge was forced to sentence him within the range recommended in the plea agreement.  Valdovinos was deported after serving this sentence.  In May 2013, he returned to North Carolina, got arrested for resisting a public officer, and received an illegal reentry charge, to which he pleaded guilty.

Valdovinos objected to the application of this sentencing enhancement because his prior conviction did not, in his view, qualify as a felony under the Guidelines as his sentence was between 10 and 12 months, less than a term exceeding one year, as defined in the Guideline.  His prior conviction could not serve as a predicate offense, he argued, to enhance his sentence for illegal reentry.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of the sentencing enhancement for illegal reentry defendants with prior felony offenses, because North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Act, not Valdovinos’ plea agreement, determined whether a defendant’s conviction was punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, qualifying as a federal sentencing predicate.  The dissent lambasts the majority holding, and the panel’s decision to hinder the progress of federal sentencing jurisprudence with its decision, and is totally worth reading (begins on page 19 of the published opinion).

$1.2 million restitution order affirmed

US v. Seignious:   In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered the restitution order that resulted from Ehizele Seignious’ convictions for an extensive credit card scheme.  In crafting the restitution order, the district court imposed an amount, $1,213,347, sought by the government, as representing the actual losses caused by the fraud conspiracy, pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”).  The amount, however, was determined without the district court having made findings on the record of actual losses caused to specific victims.

Seignious timely appealed the restitution order, and approximately one week later, the government provided a document to the court, itemizing losses to banks and retailers, as well as victims’ names and addresses, entered as a sealed document.  Appellate counsel for Seignious filed an Anders brief, the government responded, Seignious filed a pro se supplemental reply, and the Fourth Circuit set the case for oral argument on the issue of the restitution order.

Under the MVRA, the government has an obligation to provide information concerning restitution to the probation officer 60 days in advance of the scheduled sentencing date; the probation officer must, to the extent practicable, provide notice to victims and collect any necessary information from them, including documentation and testimony.  Further, the defendant must provide the probation officer with information concerning his background, financial resources, and ability to pay restitution.  If the victim’s losses cannot be ascertained by 10 days prior to sentencing, under the MVRA, the district court can set another date for the disclosure of that information up to 90 days after sentencing.

The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record, and found that restitution was imposed without the procedural requirements of MVRA being met.  The standard of review is plain error, though, and the Fourth Circuit upheld the restitution order, denying Seignious relief.  Seignious, according to the Fourth Circuit, failed to carry his burden on appeal of demonstrating that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights.  The record left the panel with no doubt that had the procedural requirements been met, it is unlikely that a different restitution amount would have been imposed.

Seignious did not object to the amount of restitution ordered or dispute the amounts proposed by the government.  The Fourth Circuit found that, although the district court could have done a better job of making a record with respect to restitution, the panel was not convinced an error occurred in finding that the conspiracy caused $1.2 in actual losses.

Disability benefits fraud convictions affirmed

US v. Perry:  Christopher Perry received three convictions for Social Security fraud, federal health benefit program fraud, and health care fraud.  He had begin receiving benefits in 1996 or 1997 under the proviso that if his medical condition improved such that he could work or if he returned to work, he would report this to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).

Perry, however, began working in 1996, and between 1996 and 2006, he worked for a variety of companies.  When the SSA made inquiries about Perry’s income from other sources, Perry either did not respond or he reported that he was not receiving income other than his disability payments.  In 2007, Perry was accepted into the Federal Career Intern Program, a training program for the SSA, to become a Benefits Technical Examiner - - while he continued to submit claims for Medicare benefits.  In 2009, SSA canceled Perry’s benefits after he failed to respond to two further employment inquiries.

When the government charged Perry with three counts of fraud, he moved to dismiss the indictment, which the district court denied, but it ordered the government to file a bill of particulars, “to delineate specifically the employment Defendant ha[d] failed to report.”  The government responded by identifying Perry’s various employers since 1996.  At trial, a jury found Perry guilty on all counts.

On appeal, Perry made several challenges to the indictment as well as the sufficiency of the evidence for one of the counts.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that the indictment was sufficient to apprise Perry of the charges against him and identify the elements of the crimes charged.  According to the Fourth Circuit, the indictment tracked the statutory language, provided specific details about the nature of the charges, and identified the “event” that triggered Perry’s disclosure obligations.  Perry also argued that the indictment failed to allege specific intent to defraud, but the Fourth Circuit found intent to defraud was charged in each count.  Additionally, Perry argued that the indictment was time-barred under the statute of limitations.  A five-year statute of limitation operated here; the district court found that the charged offenses were “continuing offenses” and part of a course of conduct, which constituted the violation.  Finally, in his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the health care fraud count, the Fourth Circuit found that the government presented evidence showing that Perry knew he had a duty to report employment to the SSA, as well as evidence from Perry’s training to be a Benefits Technical Examiner, including training on the receipt and termination of benefits.  This evidence, according to the Fourth Circuit was sufficient for a rational jury to find Perry guilty of health care fraud.

Course of 10-year drug ring ends in life sentence

US v. Brown:  Jean Brown received convictions for her leading role in a marijuana trafficking operation across several states, Mexico, and Jamaica.  Brown also received convictions for the kidnapping and murder of Michael Knight, a player in the conspiracy.

On appeal, Brown challenges the life sentence she received, based on the district court’s calculation of the drug relevant conduct.  She challenged the admission at trial of videotaped recordings of her police station interviews, arguing in addition that the trial was structurally undermined when the judge left the bench during the playback of one interview.

The videotapes of custodial statements were admissible, according to the Fourth Circuit, because there was no legitimate basis to suppress them.  Brown did not challenge the validity or adequacy of the Miranda warnings she received, rather she claimed that her attorney, hired for a separate case (cash smuggling) was ineffective for failing to accompany her to the police station for these interviews concerning as-yet uncharged criminal activity.  The Fourth Circuit declined to address an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal, as the facts here did not conclusively establish Brown’s ineffectiveness claims were legitimate.

The Fourth Circuit found that no structural error occurred, despite the fact that the district judge did vacate the bench, without warning, while the jury was shown part of the police station interview videos.  Here, the district court was only absent for a short time after all the evidence had been presented, no rulings were requested in the court’s absence, and nothing else occurred.   Any error here, according to the panel, was harmless.

The district court erred in its drug quantity instruction and verdict form, to which Brown failed to properly object according to the Fourth Circuit.  Further, the marijuana ring involved so many thousands of pounds of marijuana, that the amount involved dwarfed the amount required for the district court to impose a life sentence, so the Fourth Circuit found that the district court did not plainly err in its miscalculation.

Maryland First-Degree Burglary Conviction Not "Crime of Violence"

US v. Henriquez: Henriquez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry.  His advisory Guideline range included a 16-level enhancement for have been previously convicted of a "crime of violence" - a 2000 first-degree burglary conviction in Maryland.  The district court overruled Henriquez's objection that the Maryland burglary statute is broader than the "generic" burglary recognized by the Supreme Court and imposed a within-Guideline sentence of 41 months.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated that sentence, 2-1, after concluding that the enhancement was improper.  For illegal reentry purposes, the definition of crime of violence includes "burglary of a dwelling," which the court has recognized previously matches the definition of "generic" burglary promulgated by the Supreme Court.  Although the Maryland statute does specify that it only applies to burglary of a dwelling, it does not define "dwelling."  As a result, Maryland courts have defined the term as being broader than just a home (extending it to include RVs and unoccupied apartments), broadening the definition beyond that set forth by the Supreme Court.  Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that it was not clear whether Henriquez's 2000 conviction involved a home or one of the places specifically excluded by the Supreme Court, such as a boat or a car.  Therefore, it was error to enhance his sentence.

Judge Motz dissented, arguing that the majority misconstrued Maryland court decisions on the scope of the burglary statute.

Congrats to the Defender office in Maryland on the win!

More Than Fraudulent Scheme Needed for Sophisticated Means Enhancement

US v. Adepoju: Adepoju was involved in a bank fraud scheme, along with another person who happened to be a confidential informant.  Adepoju provided the CI with false identification documents to use to open two bank accounts.  Adepoju was then to provide checks to the CI for deposit, then split the cash withdrawals with the CI and the CI's "insider" at the bank.  As a result, Adepoju was charged with two counts of bank fraud and identity theft.  After a jury convicted him of all counts, the district court sentenced Adepoju to 70 months in prison.

Adepoju appealed his convictions to the Fourth Circuit, which were affirmed, as well as his sentence, which was vacated.  On the convictions,  the court rejected Adepoju's argument that there was insufficient evidence to support them, based largely on the testimony of the CI.  As to his sentence, however, the court concluded that the district court had incorrectly applied a two-level Guideline enhancement for use of a sophisticated means in the scheme.  The court concluded that the Government had failed to prove the enhancement applied, noting that it takes more than mere fraud to qualify as "sophisticated."  The district court had erred by essentially putting the burden on Adepoju to disprove sophistication.  Finally, the court rejected an Allenyne-based due process argument with regard to Adepoju's two-year sentence on the identity theft charge, noting that there is only one possible sentence for such a conviction, not a staggered series of mandatory minimums.