Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 98-4050
No. 98-4215
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Michael S. Seekings, MULLEN, WYLIE & SEEKINGS,
Charleston, South Carolina for Appellant Wiggs; James Kevin
Holmes, THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellant Fields. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Scott N. Schools, United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Clifford Wiggs and David Fields (collectively, "Appellants")
appeal their convictions and sentences for offenses related to their
involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy, arguing, inter alia, that
they were sentenced in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing of Wiggs.
I.
The drug transactions at the heart of Appellants criminal conduct
occurred in the early 1990s in Beaufort, South Carolina. Appellants
sold cocaine base, which they often obtained from Katrina Yates.
After completing drug transactions, Appellants would sometimes wire
the proceeds to Yates to facilitate the purchase of additional cocaine
base.
Wiggs and Fields had numerous encounters with law enforcement
before they were indicted in 1995. For example, Wiggs was arrested
in 1993 when law enforcement officers approached Wiggs in a super-
II.
Although Appellants raise numerous allegations of error and have
filed pro se and supplemental briefs, only their contention that their
sentences violated Apprendi warrants discussion. Fields and Wiggs
maintain that their convictions for conspiring to possess with the
intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base subjected them to maximum penalties of 20 years and 30 years, respectively, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. 841(b)(1)(C) (West Supp. 2001).*
Because Appellants failed to raise this claim before the district
court, our review is for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). In order to demonstrate
plain error, Appellants must show that an error occurred, that the error
was plain, and that the error affected their substantial rights. See
Olano, 507 U.S. at 732; United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 614
(4th Cir. 1997). If Appellants can satisfy these requirements, then we
have discretion to correct the error, but we will not exercise that discretion "unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings." Olano, 507 U.S. at 732
(second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Young, 470
U.S. 1, 15 (1985)).
We conclude that Fields and Wiggs have both demonstrated error.
Although Appellants convictions on the drug conspiracy charge subjected them to maximum statutory penalties of 20 years and 30 years,
respectively, see 21 U.S.C.A. 841(b)(1)(C), each Appellant received
a life sentence on that count. As explained in United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 156-57 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc), this was error.
Moreover, the error was plain. See id. at 160. Accordingly, we turn
to the question of whether the error affected Appellants substantial
rights.
*Wiggs statutory maximum sentence for Count One was greater
because the district court found that Wiggs had two prior felony drug
convictions. See 21 U.S.C.A. 841(b)(1)(C). The Apprendi rule does not
apply to penalty enhancements based on prior convictions. See Apprendi,
530 U.S. at 490.
and Williams and Traxler, JJ.) (arguing that error should not be
noticed), with id. at 186-91 (Motz, J., joined by Widener, Michael,
and King, JJ.) (arguing that error should be noticed). Thus, the question was left open for a subsequent panel. Recently, a panel of this
court held that the imposition of a sentence greater than that allowed
by a defendants conviction must be noticed on plain error review.
See United States v. Cotton, ___ F.3d ___, 2001 WL 901259, at *5*6 (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 2001). We are bound by Cotton and accordingly
must notice the plain error in Wiggs sentence. See Etheridge v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 9 F.3d 1087, 1090 (4th Cir. 1993) ("A decision of
a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on
other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion
of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme
Court." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
III.
After consideration of Appellants briefs, including their pro se and
supplemental briefs, we conclude that Appellants other allegations of
error are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm Appellants convictions and Fields sentence and remand for resentencing of Wiggs.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED