Court Opinion

ID: 9402038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 21:00:42.514422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.017242
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4323      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 6

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4323

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES WINFRED HALL, JR., a/k/a Silk,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00489-BO-1)

        Submitted: March 10, 2023                                         Decided: June 13, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz,
        Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy P. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4323       Doc: 26          Filed: 06/13/2023      Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               James Winfred Hall, Jr., appeals from his convictions and 285-month sentence

        entered following the jury’s verdict. Hall was found guilty of two counts of aiding and

        abetting interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2,

        as well as two counts of aiding and abetting possession of a firearm and brandishing in

        furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii). On appeal,

        Hall challenges the court’s statement regarding the need for a witness and the procedural

        reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.

               Hall first asserts that the district court plainly erred by stating, in front of the jury,

        that the Government did not need to present the testimony of an expert witness regarding

        the location of Hall’s cell phone during the robberies. A law enforcement officer testified

        that he had mapped Hall’s cell phone records and determined that the phone was in the area

        of one robbery. However, the officer informed the jury that he was not an expert in cell

        phone data and read for the jury a disclaimer associated with using the records to identify

        customer location, noting varying accuracy. The Government stated that its expert witness

        would not be available until a later time, and the district court responded, “You don’t need

        him.” Hall contends that the judge’s statement conveyed to the jury that the Government

        had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Hall and his cell phone were at the site of

        a particular robbery, regardless of the lack of certification of the accuracy of the records.

               Because Hall did not object below, he correctly notes that his claim is reviewed for

        plain error. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1985). “Especially when addressing

        plain error, a reviewing court cannot properly evaluate a case except by viewing such a

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4323      Doc: 26          Filed: 06/13/2023    Pg: 3 of 6

        claim against the entire record.” Id. at 16. Thus, even inappropriate and erroneous remarks

        are not plain error unless the remarks “undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial and

        contribute to a miscarriage of justice.” Id.

               Even assuming that the court’s statement was an improper comment on the

        Government’s evidence, we find that Hall cannot show a miscarriage of justice. The

        evidence at trial was overwhelming, consisting of testimony by eyewitnesses and

        codefendants, which was further corroborated by video and physical evidence. As such, a

        statement by the district court that could be viewed as bolstering the cell phone evidence

        is unlikely to have had any material effect on the jury’s view of the case. Further, the

        remark in question was isolated, and the court gave curative instructions both pre- and

        post-trial reminding the jury that any comment made by the court, aside from its

        instructions of law, should be disregarded when reaching a verdict. In sum, the court’s

        remark, when viewed in the full context of the evidence presented at trial, does not rise to

        the level of plain error. See United States v. Roof, 10 F.4th 314, 376 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (reviewing unsolicited and prejudicial witness statements for plain error).

               Hall next contends that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the

        district court did not address his arguments for a lower sentence. “A district court is

        required to provide an individualized assessment based on the facts before the court, and

        to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful appellate review and

        to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240, 243

        (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In explaining its sentence, the “court

        must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4323      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/13/2023      Pg: 4 of 6

        sentence and explain why it has rejected those arguments.” United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d

        262, 270 (4th Cir. July 13, 2020) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

               “The adequacy of the sentencing court’s explanation depends on the complexity of

        each case and the facts and arguments presented.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d

        147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, an “explanation is

        sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the defendant’s particular history and

        characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but as part of its analysis of the

        statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s arguments” in mitigation. United

        States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519 (4th Cir. 2017) (brackets and internal quotation marks

        omitted). “The court’s explanation should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court

        that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own

        legal decisionmkaing authority.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir.

        2020) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

               While “it is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the

        context surrounding its decision,” we “may not guess at the district court’s rationale,

        searching the record for statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other

        clues that might explain a sentence.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 745 (4th Cir.

        2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor may we “assume that the court has silently

        adopted arguments presented by a party.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 214 (4th

        Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the court fully addresses the

        defendant’s “central thesis” in mitigation, it need not “address separately each supporting

        data point marshalled on its behalf.” Id. Nonetheless, a district court’s failure to give

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4323       Doc: 26         Filed: 06/13/2023      Pg: 5 of 6

        “specific attention” to nonfrivolous arguments results in a procedurally unreasonable

        sentence. Lewis, 958 F.3d at 245 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Here, Hall’s arguments were brief and conclusory. While he argued that his age

        merited a lower sentence, he did not explain why the fact that he would be in his late 60s

        when he was released weighed against a Guidelines sentence. Moreover, counsel’s request

        for a sizable downward variance request was not supported by a discussion of the 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553 factors; as such, the Government’s assertions regarding Hall’s criminal history and

        the necessity for deterrence and protection of the public were not challenged.

               Further, although the court’s reasoning was also brief, the court stated that it

        considered the § 3553(a) factors, the seriousness of Hall’s conduct and role in the robbery

        offenses, and his past conduct. In addition, the court conducted a brief colloquy with Hall’s

        counsel regarding her request for a downward variance, asking for clarification and

        demonstrating that it had considered and rejected the argument. See Blue, 877 F.3d at 521

        (noting that reviewing court may infer that district court considered defendant’s arguments

        if “the sentencing court engages counsel in a discussion about that argument”).

               In addition, the Government asserts that any procedural error was harmless. To

        succeed in this argument, the Government must provide “pro[of] that the error did not have

        a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the result.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 745 (internal

        quotation marks omitted). In other words, the Government must show that Hall did not

        receive a longer sentence because of the district court’s failure to consider his nonfrivolous

        arguments. Here, the Government contends that Hall’s arguments were weak and did not

        support a downward variance in light of Hall’s criminal conduct and history.

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4323      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 6 of 6

               In United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 839-40 (4th Cir. 2010), we found the

        district court’s error harmless because the court explained that it had considered the

        sentencing factors, “emphasized the need for specific and general deterrence,” and

        determined that the defendant’s arguments were “very weak.” Similarly here, Hall’s

        arguments were quite weak. His advanced age upon release from a lengthy sentence is not

        atypical, and he presented no argument distinguishing his circumstances from the average

        prisoner. * Further, the district court stated that it considered the sentencing factors,

        emphasizing Hall’s serious criminal conduct, leadership role, and criminal history.

        Moreover, the court imposed a lower sentence than that requested by the Government, and

        Hall has not responded to the Government’s assertions of harmless error on appeal.

        Accordingly, even if the district court erred in failing to provide a sufficient explanation

        for rejecting Hall’s requested variance, any error was harmless.

               Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

               *
                 Hall also argued in district court that he was not the gunman. While Hall does not
        explicitly address this argument on appeal, any claim would be frivolous, as Hall was given
        a leadership enhancement for his role in the robberies. Moreover, prior to imposing
        sentence, the court noted that Hall planned and initiated the robberies.

                                                     6