United States v. Basham
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | KING, Circuit Judge |
| Citation | United States v. Basham, 789 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2015) |
| Decision Date | 15 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–9.,13–9. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Brandon Leon BASHAM, Defendant–Appellant. |
ARGUED:Michael L. Burke, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Arizona, for Appellant. Thomas Ernest Booth, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Stone, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Arizona, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Sung–Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge AGEE joined.
In November 2002, Brandon Leon Basham and Chadrick Evan Fulks engaged in a seventeen-day multistate crime spree, for which they were both prosecuted. Basham was convicted in the District of South Carolina of multiple crimes and sentenced to death for two of them, carjacking resulting in death, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(3), and kidnapping resulting in death, as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 1201. After we upheld Basham's convictions and death sentences on direct appeal, see United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir.2009), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 938, 130 S.Ct. 3353, 176 L.Ed.2d 1245 (2010), he moved for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By its opinion of June 5, 2013, the district court denied Basham's § 2255 motion. See United States v. Basham, No. 4:02–cr–00992 (D.S.C. June 5, 2013), ECF No. 1577 (the “Opinion”). The court subsequently denied Basham's motion to alter or amend the judgment, made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), by way of its August 21, 2013 order. See United States v. Basham, No. 4:02–cr–00992 (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2013), ECF No. 1583 (the “Reconsideration Order”).1 Basham now appeals from those decisions. As explained below, we reject Basham's assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the district court.
Our 2009 opinion disposing of Basham's direct appeal, authored by our distinguished former Chief Judge Karen Williams, detailed the pertinent facts of Basham's 2002 crime spree as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Gilbert v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
...such as suppressing exculpatory facts do not violate due process unless they render the result unfair); United States v. Basham , 789 F.3d 358, 376 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that on a collateral attack, a criminal defendant asserting a due process violation must show a "reasonable probabilit......
-
Byers v. United States
...have known of the falsity; and (3) that a reasonable probability exists that the false testimony may have affected the verdict.” Basham, 789 F.3d at 376; States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382, 400 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Kelly, 35 F.3d 929, 933 (4th Cir. 1994); Thompson v. Garrison, 516 F......
-
Byers v. United States
...have known of the falsity; and (3) that a reasonable probability exists that the false testimony may have affected the verdict.” Basham, 789 F.3d at 376; States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382, 400 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Kelly, 35 F.3d 929, 933 (4th Cir. 1994); Thompson v. Garrison, 516 F......
-
United States v. Ziegler
...erred by not adequately considering his mental competency before granting his request to represent himself. See United States v. Basham , 789 F.3d 358, 379 (4th Cir. 2015) ("In a procedural claim ... the movant contends that the trial court failed to properly ensure that the accused was com......