United States v. Haskins, 4th Cir. (2006)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4536
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONILDO ALGERIA HASKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (CR-04-162)
Submitted:
January 6, 2006
Decided:
February 10, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronildo Algeria Haskins appeals his conviction on one
count of possession with intent to distribute 53.6 grams of crack
cocaine, one count of possession with intent to distribute 310.6
grams of marijuana, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 (2000),
and
one
count
convicted
of
of
a
possession
crime
of
punishable
firearm
by
more
after
than
having
one
been
year
of
imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (2000), and the

240-month sentence imposed by the district court.
We affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed an Anders1 brief in which he

states
that
there
are
no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal,
but
suggests that the district court erred in denying Haskinss motion

for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to
sustain
the
jurys
verdict,
and
that
Haskinss
sentence
was
unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005).
In a pro se supplemental brief, Haskins essentially
repeats the arguments raised by counsel.

Haskins first argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence
was insufficient to support the jurys verdict.
A jurys verdict
must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the

record to support it.
(1942).
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80
In determining whether the evidence in the record is
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

- 2 -
substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the government, and inquire whether there is evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
to support a conclusion of a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996)
(en banc).
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the
jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the
government.
1998).
United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict on each count

of conviction.
Haskins also asserts that his sentence is unreasonable
because his offense level was enhanced for obstruction of justice
based upon his instruction to a witness to give false testimony
about where he resided and how much time he spent at her apartment.
Haskins
argues
that
the
enhancement
was
improper
because
obstruction of justice was not alleged in the indictment or found

by the jury.
Consistent with the remedial scheme set forth in
Booker, a district court shall first calculate (after making the

appropriate
guidelines.
findings
of
fact)
the
range
prescribed
by
the
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.
- 3 -
2005).
Because Haskins was sentenced post-Booker, the district
court first calculated his Guideline2 range.

The Guidelines provide for a two-level enhancement for
obstruction of justice if the defendant willfully obstructed or
impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of
justice during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or
sentencing of the instant offense of conviction.
USSG 3C1.1.
The commentary to the obstruction Guidelines includes unlawfully

influencing a witness and suborning, or attempting to suborn,
perjury.
USSG 3C1.1, comment. (n.4).
Factual findings by the
district court at sentencing, including those necessary for the

imposition of an obstruction enhancement, are reviewed for clear
error.
United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 2004).
We have reviewed the testimony in this case and conclude that the
enhancement for obstruction of justice was appropriately imposed.
After calculating the appropriate Guideline range, the
district court must then consider the range in conjunction with
other
relevant
factors
under
the
3553(a) and impose a sentence.
Guidelines
and
18
U.S.C.A.
If a court imposes a sentence
outside the Guideline range, the court must state its reasons for
doing so.
Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546.
The sentence must be within
the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.

546-47 (citations omitted).
Id. at
Haskinss convictions of possession
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) (2004).

- 4 -
with
intent
to
distribute
crack
cocaine
and
marijuana
and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon exposed him to a

statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
21 U.S.C.A.
841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2005).

In this case the district court calculated the Guideline
range, but appropriately treated the Guidelines as advisory.
The
court sentenced Haskins only after considering the sentencing

Guidelines and the 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker.
Because
the
court
imposed
sentence
within
the
applicable
Guideline range and that sentence is well within the statutory

maximum,
we
conclude
that
the
sentence
of
240
months
of
imprisonment is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We therefore affirm Haskinss conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Haskins, in writing, of the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Haskins requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Haskins.
- 5 -
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
- 6 -

United States v. Haskins, 4th Cir. (2006)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Haskins, 4th Cir. (2006)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Haskins, 4th Cir. (2006)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

February 10, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (2000), and the

On appeal, counsel filed an Anders1 brief in which he

suggests that the district court erred in denying Haskinss motion

unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

In a pro se supplemental brief, Haskins essentially

repeats the arguments raised by counsel.

must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80

In determining whether the evidence in the record is

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996)

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do

United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the

evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict on each count

obstruction of justice was not alleged in the indictment or found

Consistent with the remedial scheme set forth in

Booker, a district court shall first calculate (after making the

United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.

Because Haskins was sentenced post-Booker, the district

court first calculated his Guideline2 range.

The commentary to the obstruction Guidelines includes unlawfully

USSG 3C1.1, comment. (n.4).

Factual findings by the

district court at sentencing, including those necessary for the

3553(a) and impose a sentence.

If a court imposes a sentence

Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546.

The sentence must be within

the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.

Haskinss convictions of possession

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) (2004).

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon exposed him to a

841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2005).

court sentenced Haskins only after considering the sentencing

Guideline range and that sentence is well within the statutory

We therefore affirm Haskinss conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Haskins, in writing, of the

If Haskins requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Haskins.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.