Source: http://openjurist.org/105/f3d/648/united-states-v-clayton
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 06:52:48
Document Index: 270052230

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2114', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1']

105 F3d 648 United States v. Clayton | OpenJurist
105 F. 3d 648 - United States v. Clayton	Home105 f3d 648 united states v. clayton
105 F3d 648 United States v. Clayton 105 F.3d 648
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Leroy CLAYTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 96-4300.
Submitted Dec. 19, 1996.Decided Jan. 6, 1997.
Leroy Clayton, Jr., was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting the robbery of a post office, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2114 (West Supp.1996), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). He appeals his 78-month sentence, arguing that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence for use of a dangerous weapon. USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D).* We affirm.
Winstead and Clayton were charged with robbery of a postal employee with a dangerous weapon. Clayton was tried alone. The jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of aiding and abetting the robbery of a postal employee. At sentencing, the district court determined that a four-level enhancement was in order because Winstead displayed an object which appeared to be a dangerous weapon. We agree that the enhancement was properly made. Under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D), a four-level increase is made if a dangerous weapon was used. The term "dangerous weapon" is defined in Application Note 1(d) to USSG § 1B1.1, which directs that when an object was displayed or brandished which resembled an instrument capable of causing death or serious injury, the object should be treated as a dangerous weapon. Winstead's conduct was attributable to Clayton because it was part of a jointly undertaken criminal activity and was reasonably foreseeable to him. USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
Clayton's argument on appeal is that the enhancement should be disallowed because the jury acquitted him of armed robbery and because the government did not prove that a firearm was present. He concedes that acquitted conduct may be the basis for a sentencing enhancement under Fourth Circuit precedent and asks for reconsideration of those decisions. See, e.g., United States v. Hunter, 19 F.3d 895, 897 (4th Cir.1994). Even if we were so inclined, a panel of this court may not overrule the decision of a prior panel. Brubaker v. City of Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1381-82 (4th Cir.1991). The government was not required to prove that the object carried was indeed a firearm to obtain the enhancement.
Home105 f3d 648 united states v. clayton