United States v. Legins, Criminal No. 3:19cr104 (DJN)
| Decision Date | 20 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 3:19cr104 (DJN) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHIKOSI LEGINS, Defendant. |
On July 24, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment against Defendant Chikosi Legins ("Defendant"), charging Defendant with five offenses, including four counts related to alleged sexual acts between Defendant — a correctional officer — and an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg ("FCI Petersburg"), and one count of knowingly and willfully making materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") during the investigation of those alleged offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. On February 12, 2020, after considering all of the evidence presented during trial, a jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the first four counts and a verdict of guilty on the § 1001 count, Count Five. (ECF No. 123.) Based on the jury's verdict, the Court found Defendant guilty of the allegations in Count Five and remanded him to the custody of the United States Marshals Service pending his sentencing hearing on June 29, 2020. (ECF No. 125.)
This matter now comes before the Court for sentencing on the First Amended Presentence Investigation Report ("First PSR") (ECF No. 155), the Second Amended Presentence Investigation Report ("Second PSR") (ECF No. 173) and the parties' positions, objections and motions filed in response to both PSRs (ECF Nos. 157, 159-60, 163-67, 174-76, 178). The Court held two sentencing hearings on June 29, 2020, and July 14, 2020, during which the Court heard evidence and arguments from both sides. Based on the parties' arguments and the evidence presented, and for the reasons stated from the bench and set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the guidelines calculation in the Second PSR (ECF No. 173), OVERRULES the Government's and Defendant's Objections (ECF Nos. 174, 176) to the Second PSR, GRANTS IN PART the Government's Motion for an Upward Variance (ECF No. 175), DENIES Defendant's Motions for a Downward Variance (ECF No. 164, 176) and SENTENCES Defendant to 54 months' imprisonment, with credit for time served, three years of supervised release and a $100 special assessment. As a condition of Defendant's supervised release, for the reasons set forth below, Defendant shall participate in a sex offender treatment program, as determined by his probation officer. Defendant shall also be subject to the standard conditions of release in this District, except for mandatory substance abuse testing, though Defendant's probation officer may require him to submit to random substance abuse testing as needed.
On July 24, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment against Defendant, charging him with five offenses. Specifically, in Count One, the Indictment charged Defendant with depriving the alleged victim, B.L., "of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment" while acting under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, by subjecting B.L. to aggravated sexual abuse and attempted aggravated sexual abuse that resulted in bodily injury. (Indictment (ECF No. 3) at 2.) Count Two charged Defendant with aggravated sexual abuse and attempted aggravated sexual abuse inviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a), alleging that Defendant used force and attempted to use force against B.L. to penetrate B.L.'s mouth and anus with his penis. (Indictment at 2.)
In Counts Three and Four, the Indictment charged Defendant with sexual abuse of a ward in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b) for two separate incidents involving Defendant and B.L., namely: (1) a May 10, 2018 incident in which Defendant allegedly penetrated B.L.'s mouth and anus with his penis; and, (2) a March 16, 2018 incident in which Defendant allegedly penetrated B.L.'s mouth with his penis. (Indictment at 3.) Finally, Count Five charged Defendant with making two materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to FBI and OIG investigators in a matter within the jurisdiction of those agencies, specifically: (1) falsely denying that he engaged in sexual acts with any inmate at any time at FCI Petersburg; and, (2) falsely stating that on May 10, 2018, he attempted to use a computer and printer while engaged in "just conversation" with B.L. when they were alone in an unattended office. (Indictment at 4.)
Trial on these charges began with jury selection on February 6, 2020, (ECF No. 109), and continued until closing arguments on February 11, 2020, (ECF Nos. 118-19, 121), when the jury retired for deliberations. The jury returned a verdict on February 12, 2020. (ECF No. 122.)
After considering the evidence presented during trial and the Court's Final Instructions (ECF No. 127-1), the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on Counts One, Two, Three and Four and a verdict of guilty on Count Five of the Indictment. (Verdict Form ("Verdict") (ECF No. 123).) Importantly, in finding Defendant guilty on Count Five, the jury marked that both statements alleged in the Indictment supported its verdict. (Verdict at 3.)
Based on the jury's verdict, the Court found Defendant guilty of the allegations in Count Five. (ECF No. 124.) The Court also revoked Defendant's conditions of release and remanded Defendant to the custody of the United States Marshals Service pending sentencing. (ECF No.125.) The Court initially scheduled Defendant's sentencing hearing for June 9, 2020, but later rescheduled the hearing to June 29, 2020.
Pursuant to the Court's Sentencing Guidelines Order (ECF No. 124), on May 12, 2020, the Probation Officer filed his initial PSR (ECF No. 154), and, after receiving objections from counsel, the Probation Officer filed the First PSR (ECF No. 155) on June 12, 2020. In the First PSR, the Probation Officer outlined his calculation of the appropriate range for Defendant's sentence based on § 2J1.2 of the Guidelines, which the Court directed the Probation Officer to use after finding in its March 20, 2020 Memorandum Order (ECF No. 150) that the eight-year statutory maximum under § 1001 applied to Defendant's conviction. (Presentence Investigation Report ("First PSR") (ECF No. 155) at 4-5.)
The Probation Officer first determined Defendant's offense level under § 2J1.2, which resulted in a base offense level of 14. (First PSR at 4.) The Probation Officer then added a four-level enhancement, because Defendant made the false statements sustaining his conviction in a matter that related to a sex offense under chapter 109A of title 18 of the United States Code. (PSR at 4.) This resulted in a total offense level of 18 under § 2J1.2. (First PSR at 4.)
Because § 2J1.2 includes a cross reference to § 2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact), with the highest offense level under either provision controlling, the Probation Officer then proceeded to calculate Defendant's offense level under § 2X3.1, using Defendant's aggravated sexual abuse charge in Count Two of the Indictment as the underlying offense. (First PSR at 4-5.) Under § 2X3.1, Defendant's offense level equals the offense level for the underlying offense minus six. (First PSR at 5 (citing USSG § 2X3.1(a)(1)).) Using this guideline, the Probation Officer determined that Defendant's aggravated sexual abuse charge resulted in a base offense level of30 pursuant to § 2A3.1(a)(2) of the Guidelines. (First PSR at 5.) Because the aggravated sexual abuse charge involved conduct proscribed in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b), the Probation Officer included an additional four-level enhancement. (First PSR at 5 (citing § 2A3.1(b)(1)).) And the Probation Officer added a two-level enhancement, because the victim of the abuse, B.L., was in the custody, care or supervisory control of Defendant at the time of the offense. (First PSR at 5 (citing § 2A3.1(b)(3)).) This resulted in an offense level of 36, for a final offense level of 30 under § 2X3.1. (First PSR at 5.)
Because the offense level under § 2X3.1 exceeded the offense level under § 2J1.2, the Probation Officer concluded that Defendant's offense level under § 2X3.1 controlled, which, with no further adjustments, resulted in a total offense level of 30. (First PSR at 5.) The Probation Officer then determined that Defendant has a criminal history category I, which resulted in a guidelines calculation of 97-121 months' imprisonment. (First PSR at 6, 13.) The Probation Officer capped this range at the statutory maximum for Defendant's offense — eight years, or 96 months. (First PSR at 13.)
On June 16, 2020, Defendant filed his Objection (ECF No. 160) to the First PSR. In his Objection, Defendant raised two primary challenges: (1) a challenge to the use of any acquitted conduct to calculate his guidelines range or determine his final sentence; and, (2) a challenge to the use of the aggravated sexual abuse charge in Count Two to calculate his offense level under the § 2X3.1 cross reference. .) On June 29, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's Objection, during which the Court heard evidence and offered its preliminary findings on the appropriate guidelines range calculation.
Specifically, for the reasons stated from the bench during the June 29 hearing and set forth in the Court's June 30, 2020 Memorandum Order (the "Preliminary Order") (ECF No. 171), the Court sustained Defendant's Objection (ECF No. 160) insofar as the Probation Officer used the aggravated sexual abuse charge in Count Two to calculate Defendant's offense level under the § 2X3.1 cross reference. (June 30, 2020 Mem. Order ( ) (ECF No. 171).) The Court first rejected Defendant's objection to the use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial