Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 99-4140
No. 99-4154
No. 99-4155
No. 99-4156
No. 99-4157
No. 99-4701
COUNSEL
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Terrance Miles, Derrick Clark, Darryl Griffin,
Eric Golett, Kenny Holton, and Carlos White (collectively, "Appellants") of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
846 (West 1999). The jury also convicted Clark of possession with
intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 841 (West
1999 & Supp. 2001). Griffin pled guilty to possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) (1994).
The district court sentenced Appellants to terms of imprisonment
ranging from 292 months to life imprisonment. Appellants raise a
number of challenges to their convictions and sentences and have
moved for additional briefing. We deny Appellants motion. For the
following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for
resentencing.
I.
Appellants contend that the district court erred in denying their
request for a special verdict form and that they should have been sen-
challenge the district courts finding that the motions for new trial
were untimely filed, we find that Appellants have abandoned the
timeliness issue on appeal by failing to provide argument in their
brief. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999) (noting that issues not briefed or argued on appeal are deemed
abandoned). We therefore decline to consider their claims.
Finally, Appellants contend that the district court should not have
admitted testimony from the Governments witnesses who were seeking a reduction in sentencing based upon their cooperation. Appellants claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.
Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the government does not violate 201(c)(2) by granting immunity or
leniency or entering into plea agreements to obtain testimony"), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 1096 (2000). Thus, we find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in admitting the witnesses testimony. United
States v. Ward, 171 F.3d 188, 194 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
855 (1999) (stating standard of review).
IV.
Accordingly, we affirm Appellants convictions and Griffins sentence. We vacate the remaining five Defendants sentences and
remand for resentencing consistent with USSG 5G1.1(a),
5G1.2(d), and White, 238 F.3d at 243. 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