United States v. Munson ( 2006 )

Filed: August 18, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4288(L)
(CR-01-66-3-2-V)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES EDGAR MUNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
Appellant James Munson has filed a pro se “Motion to Correct
the Record” in which he notes that the first sentence of the text
of our opinion is incorrect. We grant his motion and amend our
opinion accordingly. The first sentence of our opinion is amended
to state:
“James Edgar Munson and Ronald Washington appeal their
jury convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 1000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and conspiracy to launder
money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(b) (2000).”
For the Court,
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES EDGAR MUNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-5015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-01-66-3-2-V)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 17, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reita P. Pendry, Charlotte, North Carolina; Christopher J. Moran,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, D. Scott Broyles, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
James Edgar Munson and Ronald Washington appeal their
jury convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 1000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841, 846 (2000), and conspiracy to launder money, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(b) (2000).
Munson and Washington contend several statements made
during the Government’s opening and closing statements referred to
questionable evidence, relied on evidence not presented to the jury
and constituted impermissible vouching for the truthfulness of
witness’s testimony. After a close review of the record, we reject
these claims. See United States v. Golding, 168 F.3d 700, 702 (4th
Cir. 1999) (holding defendant must show Government’s remarks and
conduct were improper and prejudice).
Munson and Washington also contend they were sentenced in
violation of United States v. Collins, 415 U.S. 304 (4th Cir.
2005). The Government agrees and asserts the sentences should be
remanded to the district court. Munson did not raise this claim in
the district court, so his claim is reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). To
demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that error
occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial
rights. Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-32. If a defendant establishes
these requirements, the court’s “discretion is appropriately
3
exercised only when failure to do so would result in a miscarriage
of justice, such as when the defendant is actually innocent or the
error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Washington did raise the claim below, so
we review his claim de novo.
Under Collins, the jury must determine the specific
amount of drugs attributable to each individual defendant for the
purposes of setting a threshold drug quantity under § 841(b).
Collins, 415 F.3d at 314. Individual members of a conspiracy
should not be attributed the entire quantity of drugs distributed
by the entire conspiracy. The parties agree that Munson and
Washington were sentenced in violation of Collins because they were
both individually attributed the drug quantity for the entire
conspiracy. Both the indictment and the verdict forms asked the
jury to determine the amount of drugs attributable to the entire
conspiracy, not each individual defendant. Accordingly, we find
plain error occurred in Munson’s sentencing that should be
corrected and that Washington’s sentence was also in error.
We affirm the convictions and remand for resentencing.
We decline to address Appellants’ remaining arguments concerning
the calculation of the quantities of drugs. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
4
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.*
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
*
We grant Munson’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief
and have considered the issues raised therein. We also grant
Washington’s motion to file a supplemental reply brief and have
considered the supplemental reply brief as well.
5