U.S. v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 08 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-4603.,No. 05-4602.,No. 05-4605.,No. 05-4604.,No. 05-4616.,05-4602.,05-4603.,05-4604.,05-4605.,05-4616. |
| Citation | 524 F.3d 549 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Madison BROOKS, a/k/a Pooh, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernard Jerome Mathis, a/k/a Cuz, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Winifred Morris Sparks, a/k/a Mark, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Thomas Witherspoon, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernard Jerome Sparks, Jr., a/k/a Fats, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Jessica Ann Salvini, Salvini & Bennett, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina; John Dewey Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina; Russell White Templeton, Columbia, South Carolina; William Michael Duncan, Austin, Lewis & Rogers, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James Perry Craig, Craig Law Firm, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and James A. BEATY, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Judge BEATY joined. Judge NIEMEYER wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge BEATY wrote a separate concurring opinion.
The five appellants in these consolidated appeals, Robert Brooks, Winifred Sparks ("W.Sparks"), William Witherspoon, Vernard Sparks, Jr. ("V.Sparks"), and Vernard Mathis (collectively, the "Defendants"), were each convicted by jury for offenses arising from a drug trafficking scheme in South Carolina. Specifically, the Defendants were each convicted of a single count of conspiracy to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (the "Count 1 crack conspiracy"); V. Sparks and W. Sparks were convicted of possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (the "Count 10 substantive offense"); and W. Sparks was also convicted of possession with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack, again in violation of § 841(a)(1) (the "Count 4 substantive offense").
The Defendants, who were indicted and tried together, present multiple challenges to their convictions and sentences. In particular, Mathis and Witherspoon contend that the trial court's instructions contravened the principles of United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304 (4th Cir.2005), by failing to instruct the jury that it was obliged, in connection with the Count 1 crack conspiracy offense, to determine the threshold drug quantities attributable to each individual defendant on trial.1 As explained below, we agree that the court erred in failing to give the appropriate Collins instruction and that, as to defendant Mathis, such error warrants relief. In so ruling, we reject the Government's post-argument contention that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), overruled our decision in Collins.
The Defendants also pursue other contentions of error involving, inter alia, evidence admitted at their trial and sentencing hearings, the denial of judgment of acquittal, and the calculation of their advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges. We reject these contentions of error and affirm the convictions and sentences of Brooks, Witherspoon, V. Sparks, and W. Sparks. We vacate Mathis's sentence on the Count 1 crack conspiracy and remand for resentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
On March 19, 2003, a twenty-two count superseding indictment (the "Indictment") was returned in the District of South Carolina, charging the Defendants with the Count 1 crack conspiracy,2 as well as conspiracy to use and carry firearms during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) (the "Count 2 firearms conspiracy"). These conspiracies were both alleged to have begun by at least January 1994 and to have ended in March 2003. V. Sparks and W. Sparks were charged with the Count 10 substantive offense; and W. Sparks was also charged with the Count 4 substantive offense.3
The Defendants pleaded not guilty and their trial commenced on July 7, 2003. At trial, the Government's evidence was, in substance, that the Defendants — four of whom were full- or half-brothers, while the fifth (Mathis) was a cousin — had participated in a major drug distribution scheme in and near Lancaster, South Carolina.4 This scheme centered on a residence known as "The Circle," on Willow Oak Circle in Lancaster. The Circle was owned by Vernard Sparks, Sr., who was not charged in the Indictment. When law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at The Circle in August 2000, they discovered 51.3 grams of crack and several firearms. They also found $5000 in cash in a bedroom belonging to W. Sparks, who lived at The Circle. In addition to evidence relating to drug activities at The Circle, other evidence reflected that officers had, in August 1998, stopped a vehicle that W. Sparks was driving, also containing two other occupants. The officers found a .25 caliber pistol in W. Sparks's back pocket and discovered a bag containing approximately .62 grams of crack under a tire on the driver's side of the car. Because there were no tire tracks on the drugs, the officers concluded that the drugs had been thrown from the car by W. Sparks.
At the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief, the trial court granted judgment of acquittal to the Defendants on the Count 2 firearms conspiracy. Before the court instructed the jury on the remaining three charges, the Defendants objected to the instructions on the Count 1 crack conspiracy, contending that the jury was obliged to make a finding regarding the drug quantities that were attributable to each individual conspiracy defendant.5 The court overruled the objection, however, and instead instructed the jury to the contrary, i.e., that it was obliged to find "not the amount a single defendant may have been involved with, but rather the amount of controlled substances involved in the conspiracy as a whole." Supp. J.A. 47.6
The jury returned its verdict on August 6, 2003, finding the Defendants guilty of the Count 1 crack conspiracy. The verdict also found W. Sparks and V. Sparks guilty of the Count 10 substantive offense, for possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of crack, and W. Sparks guilty of the Count 4 substantive offense, for possession with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack. The verdict form included an interrogatory relating to the Count 1 crack conspiracy, requiring the jury to complete the following by checking the box next to one of the specified drug quantities: "We unanimously find that the amount and type of drugs involved in the conspiracy as a whole were as follows...." Verdict Form, August 6, 2003. In response, the jury checked the boxes corresponding to "50 grams or more" of crack and "less than 500 grams" of cocaine.7
The district court conducted sentencing hearings for the Defendants between May 31 and June 7, 2005, at which it made findings of fact and calculated their advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges. In addition to criminal history determinations, the court found that: (1) Brooks was responsible for 2001 grams of crack and had possessed a firearm during the conspiracy; (2) Mathis was responsible for 3249 grams of crack and had possessed a firearm during the conspiracy; (3) W. Sparks was responsible for 194 grams of crack and had possessed a firearm during the conspiracy; (4) Witherspoon was responsible for 2200 grams of crack; and (5) V. Sparks was responsible for 1714 grams of crack and had possessed a firearm during the conspiracy. After calculating the advisory Guidelines ranges and considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court sentenced each of the Defendants, except W. Sparks, to 360 months' imprisonment. W. Sparks was sentenced to 200 months.8 The court ordered Mathis's sentence to run consecutive to five concurrent life sentences he was already serving in South Carolina state prison. In imposing Mathis's consecutive sentence, the district court opined that "[i]t is my understanding they normally parole state inmates who are serving life sentences reasonably soon or as soon as possible if they know that they are going to go on and serve a lengthy sentence in the federal system." J.A. 704. The sentences imposed were each within the Defendants' advisory Guidelines ranges — 188 to 235 months for W. Sparks, 324 to 405 months for Witherspoon, and 360 months to life for the other defendants.
Each of the Defendants has appealed. Two of the Defendants, Mathis and Witherspoon, contend that the court contravened the principles of United States v. Collins by failing to have the jury determine the threshold drug quantity attributable to each Defendant on trial, in order to establish their respective statutory ranges under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b).9 In addition, all of the Defendants, save W. Sparks, contend that the district court violated their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by finding facts on drug quantity and firearms possession that led to the enhancement of their sentences, and defendants Brooks, W. Sparks, and V. Sparks contend that the court improperly enhanced their sentences based on its finding of possession of a firearm, even though they had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolford v. USA
...standard, provided the resulting sentence was still within the allowable statutory range of imprisonment. 25 See United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 560 n. 20 (4th Cir.2008) (noting that “[a]lthough a sentencing court is free to calculate the advisory Guidelines range using facts that it......
-
Giles v. United States
...658 Fed. Appx. 188, 190 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 763-72 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 557-59 (4th Cir. 2008)). "[A] trial court is therefore obligated to instruct a jury to use Pinkerton6 principles to determine the quantity o......
-
American Civil Liberties Union v. Holder
...the common law provides a right to access by failing to properly raise the issue in their opening brief. See United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 556 n. 11 (4th Cir.2008); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999). Thus, we do not address any issues associated wi......
-
United States v. Safehouse
...as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy."); United States v. Brooks , 524 F.3d 549, 557 (4th Cir. 2008). But see 18 U.S.C. § 371 (providing for five-year maximum for conspiracies against the United States, which may be committ......
-
Sentencing
...for violating Pennsylvania’s loitering statute insufficiently similar to Guidelines’ understanding of loitering); U.S. v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 564 (4th Cir. 2008) (prior conviction for malicious injury to property properly included in criminal history score because not similar to any list......
-
Trials
...type harmless error because sentence for conspiracy to distribute based on drug type with “lowest conceivable liability”); U.S. v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 555-56 (4th Cir. 2008) (failure to require jury finding on drug quantity individually attributable to defendant harmless error because de......