United States v. James Muhammad ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                     No. 99-4748
    JAMES WALI MUHAMMAD,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                     No. 99-4755
    JAMES WALI MUHAMMAD,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-95-42, CR-97-16)
    Submitted: June 30, 2000
    Decided: July 19, 2000
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Edwin C. Walker, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gor-
    don, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
    Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assis-
    tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    James Wali Muhammad, formerly known as James Collins, appeals
    the district court's orders revoking his concurrent terms of supervised
    release and imposing two consecutive sentences of fourteen months
    each. Muhammad raises two issues on appeal: (1) the district court
    erred by failing to comply with 
    18 U.S.C. § 3584
    (b)(1994); and (2)
    the district court violated 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (c) (1994) by failing to
    state its reasons for the sentences imposed. Because Muhammad
    failed to object to either of his sentences or the manner in which they
    were imposed, we review his claims for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 731-32 (1993).
    Muhammad first contends that the district court erred by not dem-
    onstrating on the record that it considered the statutory factors man-
    dated by § 3584(b). Unless some contrary indication exists, this court
    presumes in non-departure cases that a district court properly consid-
    ered the pertinent statutory factors. See United States v. Johnson, 
    138 F.3d 115
    , 119 (4th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Davis, 
    53 F.3d 638
    , 642 (4th Cir. 1995). Because Muhammad's sentences
    involved no departures, this presumption applies unless contrary indi-
    cations exist. Here, the record does not reveal any such indications.
    Thus, we find that the district court's failure to expressly state its con-
    sideration of the factors mandated by § 3584(b) does not constitute
    plain error.
    Muhammad next contends that the district court violated § 3553(c)
    by failing to state its reasons for imposing consecutive rather than
    2
    concurrent sentences. Under § 3553(c), a sentencing court must state
    in open court the reasons for imposing a particular sentence. This
    court has previously reserved its opinion on what obligations
    § 3553(c) imposes on district courts and how district courts can com-
    ply with these obligations. See Johnson, 
    138 F.3d at
    120 n.7. Never-
    theless, even if the district court's failure to fully explain its reason
    for imposing consecutive sentences constituted an error that is plain,
    the failure did not prejudice Muhammad's substantial rights because
    it did not affect the outcome of the proceedings. See Olano, 
    507 U.S. at 734-35
    . Moreover, the alleged error does not seriously affect the
    fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See 
    id. at 735-36
    . Therefore, we find that the district court did not commit
    plain error warranting correction.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4748

Filed Date: 7/19/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021