Court Opinion

ID: 9387183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-15 21:00:22.294029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.993240
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4031      Doc: 30         Filed: 04/14/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4031

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DYTWAN DONNELLE CHAMBLEE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:20-cr-00051-FL-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                      Decided: April 14, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sean P. Vitrano, VITRANO LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Wake Forest, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon,
        Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4031      Doc: 30         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               A jury convicted Dytwan Donnelle Chamblee of one count of aiding and abetting

        Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 2. The district court sentenced

        Chamblee to 132 months’ imprisonment. His sentence included an enhancement for use

        of a firearm pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) (2021).

        Chamblee appeals his sentence, arguing that the Government failed to prove that firearms

        were used during the robbery and that the district court erred by finding that the use of

        firearms was reasonably foreseeable to him. We affirm.

               The evidence established that two men—Chamblee’s codefendant and an

        unidentified male—entered the Duck-Thru convenience store in Cofield, North Carolina,

        and robbed the store. Chamblee served as the getaway driver. The store employees

        testified that the two robbers had T-shirts covering their faces. One man pointed a gun at

        one of the employees; the other approached the cashier, pointed a gun at her, and demanded

        that she give him the money. He also ordered the two employees and three customers who

        were in the store to hand over their cell phones. After obtaining the money, the two men

        left the store, and Chamblee drove them away from the scene.

               Chamblee contends on appeal that the Government failed to prove that the weapons

        used were firearms. In evaluating the district court’s application of the Guidelines, we

        review factual findings for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v.

        Hawley, 919 F.3d 252, 255 (4th Cir. 2019). A finding is clearly erroneous “when a district

        court’s factual findings are against the clear weight of the evidence considered as a whole.”

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4031      Doc: 30         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        United States v. Martinez-Melgar, 591 F.3d 733, 738 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

               With these standards in mind, we conclude that the Government met its burden of

        establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the robbers used firearms during the

        Duck-Thru robbery. See United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2020); see

        also United States v. Hoelzer, 183 F.3d 880, 883 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding finding that

        defendant used a firearm during a robbery based on victim’s testimony that assailant hit

        her in the back of the head “with an unknown-type firearm” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). We therefore find no clear error in the district court’s determination that

        firearms were used during the commission of the robbery.

               Chamblee next argues that the district court erred by finding that the use of firearms

        by his accomplices was reasonably foreseeable to him and therefore enhancing his sentence

        under the relevant conduct Guideline, USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). The district court’s factual

        determination that the use of firearms was reasonably foreseeable to Chamblee is reviewed

        under the clearly erroneous standard. See Hawley, 919 F.3d at 255. For certain crimes

        where firearms are frequently used, the foreseeability of a firearm’s presence may be

        inferred from the nature of the crime. See United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666, 679

        (5th Cir. 1997) (bank robbery); United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 433 (4th Cir. 1989)

        (drug conspiracy); see also United States v. Dixon, 982 F.2d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 1992)

        (drawing conclusion that co-participant’s use of firearm was reasonably foreseeable to

        defendant based on defendant’s criminal history, which included “offenses of this nature”).

        Here, the district court found that the use of a firearm was reasonably foreseeable in a

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4031     Doc: 30         Filed: 04/14/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        Hobbs Act robbery. See USSG § 1B1.3 cmt. n.4(B)(i). This factual finding was not clearly

        erroneous.

              We therefore affirm the sentence. 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

                                                   4