United States v. Stillwell ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4993
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES PAUL ANDREW STILLWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-5042
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH HESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-10)
Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: March 7, 2006
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Monroe Jamison, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant Joseph Hess; Sol
Zalel Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant James Stillwell. John
L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Randy Ramseyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, James Stillwell and Joseph Hess were both
convicted of possession of a stolen firearm under 18 U.S.C. §
922(j) and possession of a firearm while being an unlawful user of
a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(3). In
addition, Stillwell was convicted of conspiring to possess with
intent to distribute 60 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Hess
was convicted of possessing a firearm after having been convicted
of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1), and corruptly persuading
another with intent to influence that person’s testimony and
communication to law enforcement in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1512(b)(1), (3). Stillwell received a 144-month sentence, and Hess
received a 135-month sentence.
On appeal, Stillwell and Hess each assert several grounds for
the reversal of their convictions. Stillwell argues that: (1)
there was insufficient evidence on all counts to convict, (2) the
district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to
sever, (3) the district court erred by admitting statements made by
him at police headquarters contrary to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436 (1966), (4) the district court erred in a pretrial ruling based
on Fed. R. Evid. 104(d), and (5) the district court abused its
3
discretion in giving a charge to the jury under Allen v. United
States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). Hess argues that: (1) there was
insufficient evidence on all counts to convict, (2) the district
court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to mention his
state acquittal on the same charges, (3) the district court abused
its discretion by refusing to allow cross-examination of his
nephew, Jonathan Hess, based on the timing of Jonathan’s indictment
for stolen firearms, (4) the district court erred in admitting co-
defendant statements under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123(1968), and (5) the district court erred in admitting evidence of
witness tampering such that the charge was duplicitous. Our
thorough review of the record discloses no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.
Hess further contends that he is entitled to resentencing
based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because Hess did not preserve his objection
below, our review is for plain error. See United States v. White,
405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). In White, we recognized that a
sentence that does not violate the Sixth Amendment may constitute
plain error when it appears from the record that the district court
would have imposed a lesser sentence if it had treated the
guidelines as advisory. 405 F.3d at 223. While the district court
imposed a sentence of 135 months under a mandatory guidelines
scheme, it also provided an alternative sentence of 115 months
4
after treating the guidelines as advisory as suggested by United
States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc),
vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005). Because this alternative sentence
is substantially lower than the 135-month sentence imposed by the
district court, the record provides a nonspeculative basis for
concluding that the treatment of the guidelines as mandatory
affected the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.
See White, 405 F.3d at 223-25. Thus, we agree that Hess is
entitled to resentencing consistent with Booker.
In sum, we affirm the convictions of both Stillwell and Hess.
However, we vacate Hess’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
5