Court Opinion

ID: 9941867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-17 21:01:24.028047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:13.010776
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4125      Doc: 33         Filed: 02/16/2024     Pg: 1 of 7

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4125

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DALLAS MICHAEL ACOFF, a/k/a DAL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00013-JPB-JPM-1)

        Submitted: February 7, 2024                                  Decided: February 16, 2024

        Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Robert G. McCoid, McCOID LAW OFFICES, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, West
        Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Carly Cordaro Nogay,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4125      Doc: 33         Filed: 02/16/2024      Pg: 2 of 7

        PER CURIAM:

               Dallas Michael Acoff appeals from his 240-month upward variance sentence

        imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to various drug charges. On appeal, Acoff contends

        that, in sentencing him, the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts regarding his

        prior state conviction for attempted murder. We affirm.

               On April 5, 2022, a federal grand jury indicted Dallas Michael Acoff in a five-count

        indictment, charging him with various narcotic offenses. Acoff entered a plea of guilty to

        all counts without a plea agreement. The presentence report (“PSR”) reflected that Acoff’s

        criminal history began at the age of 15 and was nearly continuous through his February 2,

        2022 arrest, except for times he was incarcerated.

               As relevant to this appeal, Acoff’s criminal history shows he was convicted in 2016

        of wanton endangerment after a trial and pled guilty to first degree attempted murder in

        2019. Both convictions arose from the same circumstances. The PSR described the

        offenses as follows:

               Records indicate that on October 9, 2015, police officers responded to Jacob
               Street in regards to a complaint of multiple shots fired. Officers observed the
               victim, Lemroy Coleman, laying on the ground covered in blood. Medical
               units responded, but Mr. Coleman was pronounced dead as a result of
               gunshot wounds to the chest.

               It should be noted that May 9, 2016, an Indictment was filed in the Ohio
               County Circuit Court, Wheeling, West Virginia, charging the defendant in
               seven separate counts. On October 14, 2016, the defendant was found guilty
               of Murder in the Second Degree. In addition, he was found guilty on three
               counts of Wanton Endangerment. On December 21, 2017, in the Circuit
               Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, the Court ordered the defendant's
               motion for a new trial be granted. On January 16, 2019, the defendant
               entered a guilty plea to Attempted Murder in the First Degree and was
               sentenced as noted above.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4125      Doc: 33        Filed: 02/16/2024     Pg: 3 of 7

        (J.A. 109-10).

              The evidence developed at Acoff’s 2016 trial (which included surveillance video)

        showed that, as Coleman and Norman Banks left the American Legion bar in Wheeling,

        West Virginia, Acoff followed them out and began firing shots at them. When Coleman

        returned gunfire, Acoff retreated inside the bar. Coleman and Banks sprinted towards the

        alley, where Coleman was found later by police. Banks, who had also been shot, ran to the

        police station. State ex. re. Smith v. Sims, 814 S.E.2d 264, 267 (W. Va. 2018). Acoff

        testified at his trial that, although he fired shots at Coleman and Banks, he did so in

        self-defense. Id. Acoff was found guilty of the second-degree murder of Coleman, the

        malicious wounding of Banks, and several counts of wanton endangerment. Id. at 268.

              In 2017, the trial court vacated Acoff’s murder and malicious wounding convictions

        based upon new evidence, specifically Banks’ subsequent testimony that another person

        shot him and Coleman after they ran into the alley. Id. at 268-69. Based on this evidence,

        the trial court found it “more likely than not” that Acoff did not “shoot” Coleman and

        Banks. Id. at 269. After the trial court vacated the murder and malicious wounding

        convictions and ordered a new trial, the County prosecuting attorney filed a writ of

        prohibition, seeking to prevent the trial court from enforcing its order. Id. The West

        Virginia Supreme Court denied the writ. Id. at 272.

              In the instant case, based upon a total offense level of 22 and a criminal history

        category of V, Acoff’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 77 to 96 months’

        imprisonment. After hearing the positions of the parties, the district court imposed an

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4125       Doc: 33         Filed: 02/16/2024      Pg: 4 of 7

        upward variance sentence of 240 months, followed by six years of supervised release. The

        court elaborated on its rationale for the sentence, stating:

               Here we have a young man who, over at least the last ten years or so, has
               been in jail a lot more than he’s been out. He has shown an inability to follow
               the rules and regulations of society. When he has been – he’s never
               successfully completed a term of supervision, and was on supervision when
               the instant offense was committed. It is his third felony conviction in this
               district. He’s had aggravated robbery with a sawed-off shotgun, carrying a
               concealed weapon, and was convicted of murder. That was set aside and for
               some reason pled to attempted murder, yet the victim’s still dead. I believe,
               based on all this, the criminal history is grossly understated. It’s properly
               calculated, but it’s grossly understated. And this community and the
               communities in Ohio need to be protected from Mr. Acoff.

        (J.A. 82).

               On appeal, Acoff argues that the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts

        during sentencing when “it suggested he had gotten away with a murder he did not

        commit.” (Appellant’s Br. (ECF No. 21) at i). Notably, Acoff does not dispute that the

        district court “made a detailed statement considering his criminal history and related

        factors” in fashioning his sentence. (Appellant’s Reply Br. (ECF No. 31) at 1). Instead,

        Acoff’s narrow issue on appeal is whether the district court “relied upon an erroneous fact

        in addition to the other factors it properly considered in deviating upwards.” (Id.).

               We review a sentence “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”          Gall v. United

        States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “must first ensure that the district court committed no

        significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range,

        insufficiently considering the 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) factors, relying on clearly erroneous facts

        to determine the appropriate sentence, or inadequately explaining the sentence imposed.

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4125      Doc: 33           Filed: 02/16/2024    Pg: 5 of 7

        United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398, 409 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        “It is a significant procedural error for a court to ‘select[] a sentence based on clearly

        erroneous facts.’” United States v. Roy, 88 F.4th 525, 530 (4th Cir. 2023). If a district

        court abuses its discretion by committing significant procedural error, we should reverse

        unless the error was harmless. Id.

               “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the

        reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

        mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364,

        395 (1948). The standard is significantly deferential. Concrete Pipes and Prod. v.

        Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). An interpretation of the

        facts that is not “illogical or implausible” and “has support in inferences that may be drawn

        from the facts in the record” is not clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,

        470 U.S. 564, 577 (1985). A contested fact or one subject to debate is not clearly erroneous.

        Roy, 88 F.4th at 532. Acoff bears the burden of showing that the district court “relied upon

        inaccurate information” when sentencing him. See United States v. Wood, 31 F.4th 593,

        599 (7th Cir. 2022).

               Acoff argues that the district court improperly connected his vacated murder

        conviction and his eventual guilty plea erroneously inferring that they related to the same

        event. Acoff states that the inference that he was responsible for Coleman’s death was

        “nothing more than mere conjecture, speculation, and surmise.” (Appellant’s Br. at 10).

        Instead, Acoff avers that his conviction for attempted murder and Mr. Coleman’s death

        were “simply factually and legally unrelated events.” (Id. at 12).

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4125         Doc: 33      Filed: 02/16/2024      Pg: 6 of 7

               However, the evidence in the record fully supports the conclusion that Acoff’s guilty

        plea was connected to the murder of Coleman. First, the PSR, to which Acoff did not

        object, described the facts of Acoff’s murder conviction and vacatur in the description of

        the conviction for attempted murder, clearly connecting the two.               Second, the

        Government’s sentencing argument, to which Acoff did not object, also connected the two.

        Despite having the burden to show error, Acoff points to nothing in the record counseling

        against the reasonable inference that Acoff’s guilty plea to attempted murder resolved the

        murder charges against him. As such, the district court’s factual finding was neither

        illogical nor implausible.

               Although not raised below, Acoff argues that, given the vacatur of the murder

        conviction and the findings in Sims, the district court erroneously concluded that he was

        responsible for Coleman’s death. However, even if the Sims case supports a conclusion

        that Acoff was not responsible for the fatal bullet(s), it also shows that Acoff shot at

        Coleman minutes (or even seconds) before he was killed. The fact that his bullets missed

        Coleman and Norman would not render Acoff’s actions any less violent or dangerous, and

        neither the record nor Acoff provides any reason to believe the district court might consider

        that scenario any more leniently. Thus, even to the extent the district court erred in

        determining that Acoff killed Coleman instead of “only” attempting to kill him, we

        conclude that any error was harmless and that Coleman has failed to show any reliance by

        the district court.

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4125      Doc: 33        Filed: 02/16/2024     Pg: 7 of 7

              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

                                                    7