United States v. Reginald Boone, 94 F.3d 642, 4th Cir. (1996)

94 F.
3d 642
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation

of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Reginald BOONE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 95-5055.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 16, 1996.
Patrick H. O'Donnell, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Laura M. Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Boone appeals his sentence imposed by the district court on remand
from this court's decision in United States v. Harris, 39 F.3d 1262 (4th
Cir.1994).1 We vacate Appellant's conviction on Count 36, affirm the
remainder of Appellant's convictions, and remand for resentencing.
Appellant first claims that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career
offender under 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines.2 However, Appellant
failed to raise this objection at either of his two sentencing hearings. See United
States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir.1990). Therefore, we review only
for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, ----, 61 U.S.L.W. 4421,
4423 (U.S. Apr. 26, 1993) (No. 91-1306). Although Appellant points out some
ambiguity in the Presentence Report (PSR), he makes no proffer of evidence

contradicting the Government's claim that his prior felony drug convictions are
unrelated as defined by USSG 4A1.2(a)(2), because they were separated from
each other by an arrest. Accordingly, we find no "clear" or "obvious" error in
the sentencing court's adoption of the PSR. Olano, 61 U.S.L.W. at 4424.
3
Appellant notes a related objection to the district court's adoption of the PSR's
criminal history calculations. However, Appellant's career offender status sets
his criminal history category at VI. See USSG 4B1.1. Accordingly, his appeal
on this issue is mooted by our finding that he was properly sentenced as a
career offender.
Finally, Appellant contends that his convictions on Counts 27 and 36 for use of
a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.A. 924(c) (West
Supp.1996), are improper in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v.
United States, --- U.S. ----, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (Nos.947448, 94-7492), which was decided during the pendency of this appeal. As the
Government concedes in its supplemental brief, the facts underlying Appellant's
conviction on Count 36 are virtually indistinguishable from the facts of Bailey,
and Appellant's conviction was premised on a definition of "use" expressly
forbidden by the Supreme Court in that case. We find that Bailey applies to
cases on appeal; accordingly, we vacate Appellant's conviction on Count 36
and remand for resentencing. 3
We find meritless, however, Appellant's contention that his conviction on

Count 27 is improper in light of Bailey . As we noted in Appellant's first
appeal, an exchange of drugs for a firearm constitutes "use." See Smith v.
United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993). We hold that Bailey does not undermine
the continuing validity of Smith. Therefore, we affirm Appellant's conviction
on Count 27.
We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing. 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
The facts surrounding Appellant's conviction and sentence are detailed in

Harris, and need not be repeated here
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.1994)
In light of our order vacating Appellant's conviction on Count 36, we need not
reach his contention that he should not have received separate, consecutive
sentences on his two 924(c) convictions

United States v. Reginald Boone, 94 F.3d 642, 4th Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Reginald Boone, 94 F.3d 642, 4th Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Reginald Boone, 94 F.3d 642, 4th Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

94 F.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Patrick H. O'Donnell, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, Norfolk, Virginia, for

ambiguity in the Presentence Report (PSR), he makes no proffer of evidence

We find meritless, however, Appellant's contention that his conviction on

We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing. We dispense

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

The facts surrounding Appellant's conviction and sentence are detailed in

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.1994)

You might also like