Case ID: f-appx_7/html/0274-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl Leon BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4919.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2001.
    Decided April 20, 2001.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, NC, for appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Leon Bailey was convicted of one count of bank robbery, one count of armed bank robbery and one count of aiding and abetting the carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2 & 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (West 2000) . With regard to the firearm conviction, the district court found at sentencing that the firearm was discharged. Accordingly, the court sentenced Bailey to 10 years’ imprisonment for that conviction, the statutory minimum. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). On appeal, Bailey contends that “brandished” and “discharged” as found in 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) are elements of separate offenses and not merely sentencing factors. Because these elements were not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, Bailey argues that he should have been sentenced to the statutory minimum term of 5 years’ imprisonment as authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). We affirm the conviction and sentence.

This court recently rejected Bailey’s argument and held that the “brandished” clause under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) was a sentencing factor. See United States v. Harris, 243 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 2001) . This holding applies to the “discharged” clause found under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).

Accordingly, we affirm Bailey’s convictions and sentences. 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.