United States v. Blackman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL KINDOCE BLACKMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cr-00050-F)
Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 16, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nora H. Hargrove, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Kindoce Blackman appeals his 468-month sentence
after pleading guilty to armed bank robbery; conspiracy to commit
armed bank robbery; making a threat to injure and kill by means of
explosives; theft of a motor vehicle by force, violence, and
intimidation (carjacking); and two counts of possessing a firearm
in furtherance of a crime of violence. Blackman contends that the
district court erred in enhancing his sentence for his role in the
bank robbery under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”)
§ 3B1.1(c) (2006), and in enhancing his carjacking sentence for an
abduction under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4). We affirm.
We review Blackman’s sentence for abuse of discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). “The first
step in this review requires us to ‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly
calculating . . . the Guidelines range.’” United States
v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 128 S.
Ct. at 597). In assessing whether the district court properly
applied the Guidelines, “we review the court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States
v. Allen, 446 F.3d 522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006). “On mixed questions
of law and fact regarding the Sentencing Guidelines, we apply a due
deference standard in reviewing the district court.” United States
v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003 (4th Cir. 1996).
- 2 -
Blackman first contends he was only a participant in the
bank robbery, and the district court clearly erred in enhancing his
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). However, there was evidence
that Blackman and his co-defendant, Roman Jermaine Graham, had been
planning the bank robbery for three years, whereas the other two
participants in the robbery were merely “their ‘jackasses.’” We
conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding Blackman
acted as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor.”
Next, Blackman contends that the district court erred in
applying an abduction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A),
along with the carjacking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5),
because “any carjacking necessarily includes an abduction.” We
disagree. The carjacking enhancement applies when a defendant
takes “a motor vehicle from the person or presence of another by
force and violence or by intimidation.” U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1 comment.
(n.1). Blackman conceded this enhancement applied, because he pled
guilty to carjacking. The abduction enhancement applies when any
person was abducted, i.e., “forced to accompany an offender to a
different location,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 comment. (n.1), to facilitate
commission of the offense or escape. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A).
The district court properly applied both enhancements because
Blackman forced his carjacking victim to accompany him to a
different location before he returned to the vehicle alone, which
facilitated his commission of the carjacking and/or his escape.
- 3 -
See Osborne, 514 F.3d 377; Nale, 101 F.3d 1000; United States
v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, 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
- 4 -