Case ID: f-appx_5/html/0305-01.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. Michael HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4456.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 28, 2001.
    Decided March 16, 2001.
    
      Mark Bodner, Fairfax, VA, for appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, William J. Lovett, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Hicks appeals the 51-month sentence he received after he was convicted of assaulting a correctional officer at Lorton Reformatory in violation of D.C.Code Ann. § 22-505(a) (1999). He contends that the district court erred in sentencing him under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

In United States v. Young, 916 F.2d 147, 150 (4th Cir.1990), this Court held that the Guidelines apply to Virginia offenses assimilated under 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West 2000), and to violations of the D.C.Code which occur at Lorton. Hicks argues that 18 U.S.C.A. § 3551(a) (West 2000), indicates that the Guidelines do not apply to acts of Congress applicable exclusively in the District of Columbia. Hicks argues that, because his offense was neither a federal offense nor an assimilated state offense, and he was not sentenced at the same time for any federal or assimilated offenses, the Guidelines did not apply, or at the very least, the rule of lenity should be invoked in construing § 3551 to find that they do not apply. Hicks attempts to distinguish his case from Young by arguing that it is significant that he was sentenced for a single D.C.Code violation, while the defendant in Young was convicted and sentenced at the same time for a federal offense and an assimilated Virginia offense. He argues that Young did not address the issue he raises here and is thus not dispositive.

We find that Young governs this case. Although it did not directly address the issue Hicks raises, Young held that the Guidelines applied to all of Young’s convictions — a federal offense, a Virginia assimilated offense, and a D.C.Code § 22-505(a) violation. Young, 916 F.2d at 152. Moreover, Young did not make any distinction between a D.C.Code violation being sentenced singly or with other offenses. The clear import of Young is that the Guidelines apply to all violations of the D.C.Code that are committed at Lorton.

We therefore affirm the sentence. 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. 
      
       Title 18, § 3551(a) provides:
      Except as otherwise specifically provided, a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense described in any Federal statute, including sections 13 and 1153 of this title, other than an Act of Congress applicable exclusively in the District of Columbia or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter so as to achieve the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 3553(a)(2) to the extent that they are applicable in light of all the circumstances of the case.
      18 U.S.C.A. § 3551(a) (emphasis added).
      D.C.Code Ann. § 22-505(a) prohibits various forms of interference with District of Columbia correctional officers whether the "institution or facility is located within the District of Columbia or elsewhere.”