United States v. Young ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4875
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00032-jpj)
Submitted: May 2, 2007 Decided: May 30, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kent Wicker, REED WICKER PLLC, Louisville, KY, John P. Fishwick,
Jr., LICHTENSTEIN, FISHWICK & JOHNSON, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Dennis H. Lee, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Ray Young (Young) and his wife, Teresa Young, were
originally charged in a six count indictment with various drug and
weapons charges. On June 9, 2004, Young entered into a written
plea agreement with the Government. Young agreed to plead guilty
to Count One, conspiracy to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841 (1999), and Count Four, using and carrying a firearm
during and in relation to or possessing in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006). Young also agreed to forfeit the property that
provided the basis for Count Six.
On June 18, 2004, during their joint plea colloquy, Young
and his wife both made statements that the drug sales did not begin
in 2000 as alleged, but later, possibly in 2002 or 2003. The
Youngs appeared for sentencing on August 24, 2004. Pursuant to
Mrs. Young’s plea agreement, the district court sentenced her to
one day in jail on Count Two, possession with intent to distribute
oxycodone, and to sixty months on Count Three, possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Her agreement
stipulated that the applicable drug weight for sentencing purposes
in her case would not be the total amount sold from 2000-2004, but
the amount she sold to a confidential informant, approximately 2.97
grams.
- 2 -
During Young’s sentencing, the court heard evidence that
the probation officer calculated drug weight based on Mrs. Young’s
initial statements to law enforcement officers about drug amounts
sold from 2000-2004. ATF Agent Aaron Yoh also testified that law
enforcement was aware of Young’s drug activities as early as 2001.
Yoh also testified that at a proffer session Young identified a
Larry Smith as one of his suppliers of Oxycontin. Young then
elected to testify in support of his objection that he did not
start selling drugs until 2003. In his testimony, Young denied
ever purchasing drugs from Larry Smith. However, on cross-
examination, Young admitted that at the proffer session he may have
admitted to selling drugs in 2002 and that he may have threatened
his wife’s life.
After Young testified, he insisted his wife be called as
a witness. In her testimony, Mrs. Young repudiated her statement
from the plea hearing that Young did not sell drugs in 2000 and
2001. Mrs. Young also testified that Larry Smith was a source for
her husband’s drugs, that her husband began selling in 2000, that
she was afraid of her husband because he had put a gun to her head
on a prior occasion for dipping into his drugs and money, and that
a Smith and Wesson nine millimeter never left his side. Mrs. Young
also testified that she started selling drugs in 2002 when Young
gave her an ultimatum to either help in the sales or leave the
home. Mrs. Young also testified that her initial statement to law
- 3 -
enforcement was her best estimate of drugs sold from 2000-2004.
Finally, Mrs. Young testified that her husband asked her to lie at
his sentencing by testifying that he did not start selling drugs
until 2003.
The district court accepted the presentence report and
sentenced Young to sixty months on Count One and sixty months on
Count Four. Young did not appeal; however, he did collaterally
attack his plea and sentence in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
The district court ruled in favor of Young on his claim that his
counsel failed to honor his request to file a notice of appeal, but
denied the motion on all other points based on Young’s waiver of
collateral attack rights. To reinstate Young’s appeal rights, the
district court resentenced Young on August 17, 2006. Young timely
appealed, alleging four separate errors.
Young first argues that the district court imposed its
sentence based on an unreliable estimate of the amount of drugs
sold. This court reviews findings of fact related to a district
court’s application of the sentencing guidelines for clear error.
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Here, the district court’s determination
of drug weight was not clearly erroneous. Mrs. Young’s testimony
provided ample credible evidence that Young began selling drugs in
2000 and not 2004 as he claimed.
- 4 -
Young next argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2000)
required the district court to vary from the guidelines and impose
the same sentence on the possession count as his co-defendant wife
received. Young further argues that the only reason his wife
received a lesser sentence was due to the Government’s stipulation
as to drug weight in her case and this stipulation was improper in
light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
The differences in sentences between Young and his wife
were fully supported by the fact that Young became involved in
narcotics dealing first, Mrs. Young only became involved several
years later, Young brought drugs to his wife from other states for
sale, and while Mrs. Young testified truthfully at sentencing,
Donald Young testified inconsistently with prior statements to law
enforcement. Moreover, the district court was fully aware of the
facts in both Mr. and Mrs. Young’s cases, and it was not required
to base Young’s sentence on the Government’s stipulation as to drug
weight attributable to Mrs. Young. The district court, therefore,
did not err in sentencing Mr. and Mrs. Young to different
sentences.
Young next claims that his sentence was unreasonable.
Young raises two separate grounds for this argument. First, Young
argues that the Government should be bound by its stipulation in
his wife’s case as to the amount of drugs involved. However, this
court has already determined that non-mutual collateral estoppel
- 5 -
does not apply in sentencing proceedings. Therefore, his first
argument is without merit. United States v. Pierce, 400 F.3d 176,
182 (4th Cir. 2005). Young’s second argument is that he should
have been sentenced to one day on the drug count because the five
year sentence he received on the firearms count was “onerous” given
the facts of his case. However, the district court heard evidence
that Young never let a 9 millimeter Smith and Wesson out of his
sight, and Young threatened his wife with a 9 millimeter handgun
for dipping into his drugs and cash. Therefore, Young has not
shown his sentence was unreasonable.
Finally, Young attempts to raise a claim originally
raised in his § 2255 motion and dismissed by the district court.
Young failed to appeal the district court’s ruling on his § 2255
motion, and he cannot now properly raise in his direct appeal a
claim from his § 2255 motion that was dismissed by the district
court. See In re Williams, 444 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 6 -