Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05264/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tremayne Navaris Carmichael
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREMAYNE NAVARIS CARMICHAEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00009)

Submitted: February 14, 2008 Decided: February 29, 2008

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-5264 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/29/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tremayne Navaris Carmichael pled guilty to possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and

was sentenced to a term of seventy-two months imprisonment.

Carmichael appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court

erred in making a 6-level adjustment for assault on a law

enforcement officer in a manner that created a substantial risk of

serious bodily injury during the offense, or immediate flight

therefrom, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.2(c)(1)

(2005). We affirm.

Carmichael was stopped by Goldsboro, North Carolina,

Police Officer Steven Powers because Carmichael’s vehicle matched

the description of a car involved in recent drive-by shooting.

Powers called for backup after seeing what appeared to be marijuana

on Carmichael’s pants. Carmichael, who had a loaded firearm

concealed in his waistband, tried to flee through the open

passenger-side window. After a brief struggle with Powers, who

reached in through the window on the driver’s side and grabbed his

legs, Carmichael succeeded in pulling the top half of his body out

of the window. Powers testified at the sentencing hearing that, at

this point, he looked over the roof of the car and saw a gun in

Carmichael’s hand, coming toward him. Powers shot and wounded

Carmichael. 

Appeal: 06-5264 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/29/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
- 3 -

At sentencing, the district court heard conflicting

testimony about the incident from Powers, the backup officer,

Carmichael, and two witnesses to the incident. Carmichael

testified that he did not take the gun from his waistband before he

was shot. The court found Powers’ testimony to be the most

credible. Carmichael also argued that the § 3A1.2(c)(1) adjustment

required a finding that he intended to harm the officer, but he

informed the court that he would not object to a 2-level adjustment

under USSG § 3C1.2 (Reckless Endangerment). The court applied

§ 3A1.2, finding that Carmichael caused Powers to fear that he

would be shot, thus making the implied finding that his conduct

amounted to an assault in a manner that created a substantial risk

of serious bodily injury.

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear

error and its interpretation of the guidelines de novo. United

States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 679 (4th Cir. 2004). Application

Note 4 to § 3A1.2 states that “[s]ubsection (c) applies in

circumstances tantamount to aggravated assault” against a law

enforcement officer or prison official, and that “its applicability

is limited to assaultive conduct against such official victims that

is sufficiently serious to create at least ‘a substantial risk of

serious bodily injury.’” The commentary to § 3A1.2 does not define

aggravated assault. Nor does it require a showing of intent. 

Appeal: 06-5264 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/29/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
*When Sloley was decided, the pertinent language was in

§ 3A1.2(b) and the guideline provided only a three-level

adjustment. Amendment 664, effective November 1, 2004, added

subsection (c) and increased the adjustment to six levels.

- 4 -

Carmichael contends that the district court should have

applied the definition of aggravated assault set out in Application

Note 1 to USSG § 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault). However, § 2A2.2 is

not applicable to Carmichael’s offense. Definitions of widely-used

terms are set out in USSG § 1B1.1 (Application Instructions).

Application Note 2 to § 1B1.1 states that definitions of terms

contained in other guidelines “are not designed for general

applicability” and “their applicability to sections other than

those expressly referenced must be determined on a case by case

basis.” 

In this case, Carmichael concedes, as he did in the

district court, that his conduct caused a substantial risk of

serious injury to Powers, but maintains that only a 2-level

adjustment under § 3C1.2 was warranted. However, both

§ 3A1.2(c)(1) and § 3C1.2 may apply, without a finding of intent,

if the defendant created a substantial risk of serious bodily

injury. The difference is that, if the defendant’s conduct caused

the risk to an official victim, such as a law enforcement officer,

the 6-level adjustment under § 3A1.2 must be applied. See United

States v. Sloley, 19 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 1994);* USSG § 3C1.2,

comment. (n.1) (§ 3C1.2 should not be applied if another Chapter

Appeal: 06-5264 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/29/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
- 5 -

Three adjustment results in greater increase in offense level based

on same conduct).

Carmichael attempts to distinguish Sloley, asserting that

the only issue in that case was the district court’s factual

finding that Sloley assaulted the officer. However, like

Carmichael, Sloley argued that his conduct warranted the

application of § 3C1.2 instead of § 3A1.2. We noted in Sloley

that, if both § 3A1.2(b) and § 3C1.2 apply, the sentencing court

must apply § 3A1.2, which provides a greater increase, see 19 F.3d

at 154, and for that reason, we stated that the relevant question

was whether the defendant’s conduct warranted a finding that he had

assaulted the officer in a manner creating a substantial risk of

serious bodily injury. Id. Here, as in Sloley, Carmichael’s

conduct created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to the

officer. We find no error in the court’s application of

§ 3A1.2(c)(1).

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court. 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

Appeal: 06-5264 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/29/2008 Pg: 5 of 5