Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 13-4022
No. 13-4028
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00398-JKB-3; 1:11-cr-00398-JKB-1)
Argued:
Decided:
Hobbs
Act
robbery.
Evan
also
pleaded
guilty
to
the
government
their
court
to
for
move
respective
acceptance
of
3E1.1(b).
erred
district
in
4B1.1.
erred
an
offense
in
failing
additional
levels
responsibility
under
in
to
one-level
compel
reduction
recognition
U.S.
the
of
Sentencing
in
their
Guideline
sentencing
him
as
career
offender
under
U.S.S.G.
I.
On August 3, 2011, a grand jury returned a fifteen-count
indictment against Evan and Michael, charging them with multiple
Hobbs Act robberies, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and
bank larceny. 1
robberies.
back
to
In
September
the
meantime,
10,
2012.
the
On
trial
May
15,
date
was
2012,
the
the
government,
conspiracy
to
commit
U.S.C.
1951(a).
August
24,
commit
Hobbs
2012,
Act
wherein
Hobbs
Evan
he
Act
signed
agreeing
robbery
to
agreed
to
plead
robbery,
in
violation
written
plead
and
to
guilty
possessing
to
of
18
agreement
on
conspiracy
to
in
plea
to
guilty
firearm
were
criminal
history
Guidelines
months
also
both
career
categories
range
for
imprisonment.
both
of
VI.
Michael
Evan
faced
The
and
an
so
they
each
resultant
Evan
was
additional
had
advisory
168
to
210
mandatory,
as career offenders.
each defendant.
The
district
recommendations
modification.
court
with
adopted
respect
to
the
Evan
PSRs
with
findings
only
and
minor
for
the
firearm
imprisonment.
offense,
for
total
of
294
months
career
offender,
and
therefore
the
guideline
range
to
be
respect
findings,
but
to
Michael,
determined
the
that
court
accepted
Michaels
the
criminal
PSRs
history
It therefore adjusted
range
to
imprisonment.
the
of
151
to
188
below-Guidelines
After
thoroughly
months.
It
sentence
addressing
then
of
144
the
sentenced
months
3553(a)
II.
We review criminal sentences for reasonableness.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
requires
us
to
significant
ensure
that
procedural
the
error,
Reasonableness review
district
such
Id. at 51.
as
Gall v.
court
committed
improperly
no
calculating
In assessing a challenge to
courts
factual
findings
conclusions de novo.
for
clear
error
and
its
legal
3E1.1
of
offense-level
responsibility
authorizes
for
his
two-level
the
Sentencing
reductions
criminal
reduction
if
Guidelines
authorizes
defendant
accepts
conduct.
Section
3E1.1(a)
[i]f
the
defendant
clearly
As
They take
3E1.1(b)
reduction
should
only
be
granted
by
the
government
purposes
of
to
move
3E1.1(b)
for
were
the
not
reduction,
finding
that
the
fulfilled
because
lots
of
J.A. 250.
begin
3E1.1(b).
our
See
analysis
Stinson
with
v.
the
United
commentary
States,
508
accompanying
U.S.
36,
38
The commentary
U.S.S.G.
3E1.1
cmt.
n.6.
We
hardly
think
the
Evan waited
this
delay,
the
Foremans
argue
that
they
are
negotiations
definitively
does
not
signal
defendants
Guideline.
Cf.
Divens,
650
F.3d
at
348
(noting
that
As
only
appropriate
J.A. 251.
when
has
accepted
in
background.
timely
The
negotiations
may
manner.
Foremans
have
U.S.S.G.
willingness
signaled
some
3E1.1
cmt.
enter
plea
to
readiness
to
accept
that
regard,
the
Foremans
delay
in
entering
their
The
to
prepare
motions,
interview
witnesses,
review
newly
See J.A.
best
position
to
determine
whether
the
defendant
has
discretion
to
determine
10
whether
the
defendants
Nor did
to
the
Foremans
assertions,
Divens
is
not
the
defendant
refused
to
sign
plea
agreement
charged
offense
without
plea
agreement
and
signed
a
We
of
trial
resources--not
that
the
government
would
the
expense
Id. at 348.
be
within
its
and
We noted,
rights
to
defendants
indictment
and
plea,
thereby
requiring
the
not plead guilty until after jury selection was not entitled to
the 3E1.1(b) reduction).
Here, the government prepared for trial during the delay
between the Foremans indictment and the entry of their plea
agreements.
the
district
court
correctly
Accordingly, we hold
declined
to
compel
the
defendant
has
at
least
two
prior
felony
convictions
of
the
convictions.
state
court
records
associated
with
his
and
of
that
proof
such
to
the
showing
is
government
sufficient
to
to
demonstrate
shift
the
that
the
so,
as
it
would
require
constitutional waters.
us
to
wade
unnecessarily
into
U.S. 288, 341 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also United
States v. Martinez-Cruz, 736 F.3d 999, 1001-02 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
(recognizing that the question of who bears the burden of proof
when
defendant
collaterally
challenges
prior
state
Rather, we summarily
States
v.
Rivera-Santana,
668
F.3d
95,
102
(4th
Cir.
13
sentence
was
higher
than
what
Michael
Although
argued
was
had
prior
conviction
for
armed
robbery
and
had
offense,
including
victims.
Id.
the
horrible
harm
it
inflicted
this
the
on
careful
analysis,
we
are
entitled
to
In light
affirm
the
14
Rivera-
([I]t
would
make
no
sense
to
set
aside
[a]
reasonable
sentence and send the case back to the district court since it
has
already
told
us
that
it
would
impose
exactly
the
same
III.
For
the
reasons
given,
we
affirm
the
district
courts
judgments.
AFFIRMED
15