United States v. Julius Nesbitt , 464 F. App'x 89 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-5221
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JULIUS NESBITT, a/k/a Butch,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (2:08-cr-01153-DCN-1)
    Submitted:   January 31, 2012             Decided:   February 6, 2012
    Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
    per curiam opinion.
    Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
    Attorney, Peter T. Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Julius    Nesbitt      appeals       his       conviction      and       151-month
    sentence of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute and distribute oxycodone, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (2006); two counts of possession with intent to distribute
    and    distribution         of    oxycodone,          in    violation      of        
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (a)(1),         (b)(1)(C)          (West        Supp.       2011);        one        count    of
    possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006); and one count of causing
    the Coast Guard to attempt to save a life and property when no
    help       was   needed,     in   violation          of    
    14 U.S.C. § 88
    (c)       (2006).
    Counsel for Nesbitt filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
    California,        
    386 U.S. 738
        (1967),          stating    that      there       are     no
    meritorious         issues       for    appeal,       but       questioning          whether      the
    district court erred in denying Nesbitt’s motions to dismiss and
    for a Franks * hearing.                  Nesbitt filed a pro se supplemental
    brief,      arguing       that    the    district         court    erred       in    denying       his
    motions to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and for a Franks
    hearing      and    in    permitting       the       Government      to    use       visual       aids
    during its closing argument.
    Upon review of the record, we directed supplemental
    briefing on the issues of whether the district court erred in
    *
    Franks v. Delaware, 
    438 U.S. 154
     (1978).
    2
    denying Nesbitt’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and
    whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to
    adequately     explain      the    sentence    imposed.       We   now   affirm
    Nesbitt’s convictions, but we vacate the sentence and remand for
    resentencing.
    We review a district court’s factual findings in its
    ruling on a motion to dismiss for clear error and its legal
    determinations de novo.           United States v. Kellam, 
    568 F.3d 125
    ,
    132 (4th Cir. 2009).              The Speedy Trial Act requires that a
    defendant’s trial “commence within seventy days from the filing
    date . . . of the information or indictment, or from the date
    the   defendant   has    appeared     before   a   judicial   officer    of    the
    court   in   which   such    charge    is   pending,   whichever    date      last
    occurs.”     
    18 U.S.C. § 3161
    (c)(1) (2006).            The Act provides for
    several excludable delays, including those resulting from the
    grant of a continuance where the district court finds that “the
    ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best
    interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial”;
    trial on other charges; and the filing of pretrial motions.                     
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3161
    (h)(1)(B), (D), (7)(A) (West Supp. 2011).                 If the
    defendant’s trial does not begin within seventy days and the
    delay is not excludable, the district court “shall” dismiss the
    indictment with or without prejudice on motion of the defendant.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3162
    (a)(2); United States v. Henry, 
    538 F.3d 300
    ,
    3
    304 (4th Cir. 2008).            The defendant bears the burden of proving
    a Speedy Trial Act violation.                   
    18 U.S.C. § 3162
    (a)(2); United
    States v. O’Connor, 
    656 F.3d 630
    , 633 (7th Cir. 2011), petition
    for    cert.    filed,     __    S.   Ct.   __    (U.S.       Nov.    29,     2011)   (No.
    11-7625).
    We conclude that Nesbitt has not carried his burden of
    establishing a Speedy Trial Act violation.                           The Speedy Trial
    clock began running when Nesbitt appeared before a magistrate
    judge for arraignment on April 8, 2009.                         The following day,
    Nesbitt filed motions for disclosure of intent to use evidence
    of other crimes, for leave to file additional motions, and for
    discovery,       thereby        tolling     the     clock.            See     
    18 U.S.C. § 3161
    (h)(1)(D).         Nesbitt has not produced any evidence that
    these motions were disposed of prior to November 10, 2009, when
    he    filed    his   motion      to   suppres,      or   at    anytime        thereafter.
    Therefore, we hold that Nesbitt has not carried his burden of
    showing that any time ran on the clock between his pretrial
    filings on April 9, 2009, and the beginning of jury selection on
    August 10, 2010.           Accordingly, we conclude that the district
    court did not err in denying Nesbitt’s motion to dismiss.
    We review de novo the legal determinations underlying
    a district court’s denial of a Franks hearing and the district
    court’s   factual     findings        for   clear    error.          United    States   v.
    Allen, 
    631 F.3d 164
    , 171 (4th Cir. 2011).                      In order to obtain a
    4
    Franks    hearing           to   attack       a    facially         sufficient          warrant
    affidavit,      a     defendant        must    make     a    substantial          preliminary
    showing that a false statement critical to a finding of probable
    cause    was    included         in    the    warrant       affidavit       knowingly      and
    intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth.                                     See
    Franks, 
    438 U.S. at 155-56
    ; United States v. Clenney, 
    631 F.3d 658
    , 663 (4th Cir. 2011).                     “This showing must be more than
    conclusory and should include affidavits or other evidence to
    overcome the presumption of the warrant’s validity.”                                Clenney,
    
    631 F.3d at 663
         (internal       quotation       marks     and       alterations
    omitted).           Nesbitt      did    not    make     a    substantial          preliminary
    showing    that      the     affiant      lied     or     omitted     information         with
    reckless disregard for the truth.                   Accordingly, we conclude that
    the district court did not err in denying Nesbitt’s motion for a
    Franks hearing.
    We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
    a   deferential       abuse      of    discretion       standard.          Gall    v.    United
    States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 45 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 
    592 F.3d 572
    , 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard of
    review applicable when defendant properly preserves a claim of
    sentencing error in district court “[b]y drawing arguments from
    [18 U.S.C.] § 3553 [(2006)] for a sentence different than the
    one   ultimately       imposed”).             We   must     begin     by    reviewing      the
    sentence for significant procedural error, including such errors
    5
    as     “failing     to    calculate       (or       improperly          calculating)       the
    Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
    to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
    clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
    chosen sentence.”         Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    .
    “When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must
    make     an     individualized           assessment            based     on      the   facts
    presented.’”        United States v. Carter, 
    564 F.3d 325
    , 328 (4th
    Cir.    2009)     (quoting      Gall,    
    552 U.S. at 50
    ).      Accordingly,       a
    sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to
    the particular facts presented and must “state in open court”
    the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence.                                   Id.
    (internal       quotation      marks     omitted).          The   court’s        explanation
    need not be exhaustive; it must be “sufficient ‘to satisfy the
    appellate       court    that    the     district         court   has     considered       the
    parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its
    own     legal     decisionmaking          authority.’”             United        States     v.
    Boulware, 
    604 F.3d 832
    , 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v.
    United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 356 (2007) (alterations omitted)).
    When,      as     here,      the       district          court     imposes     a
    within-Guidelines sentence, the district court may “provide a
    less     extensive,       while        still       individualized,             explanation.”
    United States v. Johnson, 
    587 F.3d 625
    , 639 (4th Cir. 2009).
    That    explanation,          however,    must      be    sufficient       to     allow    for
    6
    “meaningful appellate review” such that we need “not guess at
    the district court’s rationale.”                       Carter, 
    564 F.3d at 329-30
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    We conclude that the district court erred in failing
    to    provide      an     adequate      explanation        for    its     chosen    sentence.
    During sentencing, the court merely stated that it “calculated
    and    considered          the      advisory     Sentencing        Guidelines        and      the
    relevant         statutory       sentencing     factors      contained       in    18     United
    States Code 3553(a).”                  The district court chose not to accept
    either      party’s       suggested      sentence,      instead         sentencing       in   the
    middle      of    the     Guidelines      range,     but    it    provided     very       little
    indication that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a
    reasoned          basis       for      exercising      its        legal     decisionmaking
    authority.
    The    Government      argues      that    any    error     was    harmless.
    When this court concludes that the district court committed a
    procedural         error      in     sentencing,      “the       government        may     avoid
    reversal only if it demonstrates that the error did not have a
    substantial and injurious effect or influence on the result and
    we    can    say       with     fair    assurance      that       the    district        court’s
    explicit consideration of the defendant’s arguments would not
    have     affected         the       sentenced       imposed.”           United      States v.
    Boulware, 
    604 F.3d 832
    , 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
    marks and alterations omitted).                     Here, because Nesbitt requested
    7
    a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range based on his
    age   and   health   and   the    district        court    imposed     a    different
    sentence without any indication that it had considered Nesbitt’s
    argument, the Government’s conclusory argument is insufficient
    to    establish    harmless      error.          Therefore,    we      must    vacate
    Nesbitt’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed Nesbitt’s
    pro se claims and the record in this case and find that there
    are no other meritorious issues for review.                  We therefore affirm
    the   convictions,     vacate     Nesbitt’s       sentence,     and     remand       for
    resentencing.      We deny Nesbitt’s motion to consolidate briefs or
    terminate counsel.
    This   court   requires       that    counsel     inform       Nesbitt    in
    writing of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
    States    for   further    review.        If     Nesbitt    requests       that   such
    petition be filed, but counsel believes that the petition would
    be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
    withdraw from representation.             Counsel’s motion must state that
    a copy thereof was served on Nesbitt.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions   are    adequately         presented    in    the     materials
    8
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART;
    VACATED IN PART;
    AND REMANDED
    9