Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 14-4508
No. 14-4523
No. 14-4524
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4525
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge.
(7:13-cr-00038-SGW-1;
7:13-cr-00038-SGW-3;
7:13-cr00038-SGW-4; 7:13-cr-00038-SGW-2)
Decided:
August 4, 2015
PER CURIAM:
A
Jones,
jury
convicted
(collectively
Oshay
Jones,
Kearrah
the
Joneses)
Jones,
and
Dominique
Qwanesha
Morris
months
imprisonment
each,
Kearrah
to
120
ordered
the
Joneses
to
forfeit
$220,000
and
months
The court
Morris
to
forfeit $40,000.
Appellants
assert
that
the
district
court
erred
in:
included
offense;
adequate
(4) imposing
sentences.
(2) admitting
foundation;
procedurally
telephone
(3) ordering
and
recordings
forfeiture;
substantively
and
unreasonable
Appellants
first
challenge
the
district
courts
the
conspiracy.
They
contend
that
drug
quantity
was
an
that
increases
defendants
statutory
minimum
sentence
is
777
discretion
F.3d
exists
684,
688
where
(4th
the
Cir.
proposed
United States v.
2015).
An
instruction
abuse
of
(1) [was]
point
so
important
that
the
failure
to
give
conclude
that
the
district
court
did
not
the
Id.
abuse
its
756,
770-71
(4th
Cir.
2010)
(vacating
conviction
and
under
Count
of
the
4
indictment
for
conspiracy
to
evidence
warrants,
be
convicted
of
one
of
the
lesser
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Parties
may
not
United States v.
Taylor, 754 F.3d 217, 226 n.* (4th Cir.), petition for cert.
filed, __ S. Ct. __ (Sept. 4, 2014) (No. 14-6166).
discretion
occurs
arbitrarily
or
only
when
irrationally
in
5
the
district
admitting
An abuse of
court
evidence.
acted
United
States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The
See
United States v. Franco, 874 F.2d 1136, 1139-40 (7th Cir. 1989)
(noting liberal interpretation of term by Third, Sixth, Seventh,
and Eighth Circuits).
information.
contend
Frank
that
Harris,
the
the
court
improperly
assistant
chief
We disagree.
found
that
correctional
The record
Thus, we discern no
forfeiture,
arguing
the
courts
determinations
lack
594
convicted
F.3d
of
352,
drug
363
(4th
trafficking
Cir.
United States v.
2010).
offense
must
forfeit
(2012).
To
obtain
forfeiture,
the
defendant
any
21 U.S.C.
Government
must
Fed. R.
1293,
conclude
1313
that
(D.C.
the
Cir.
district
1997)
(collecting
courts
cases).
determination
of
We
the
IV.
Finally, the Joneses challenge the reasonableness of their
sentences,
which
we
review
for
abuse
of
discretion.
United
We
the
Guidelines
range,
failure
to
consider
the
18
U.S.C.
procedural
error,
we
examine
substantive
reasonableness
under
only
be
unreasonable
factors.
rebutted
when
by
measured
showing
against
that
the
the
18
sentence
U.S.C.
is
3553(a)
district
courts
legal
conclusions
at
sentencing
are
United
hearsay,
provided
8
that
the
information
has
afford
considerable
determinations
regarding
deference
the
to
reliability
of
district
Id.
courts
information
in
definite
committed.
and
firm
conviction
that
mistake
has
been
Joneses
calculating
the
contend
that
Guidelines
the
ranges
district
because
court
the
base
erred
in
offense
The Government
distribute
controlled
substances
is
accountable
for
all
The
Government
must
prove
the
drug
quantity
attributable
fail
to
affirmatively
unreliable information.
show
that
to
the
United States v.
court
relied
on
Joneses
also
assert
various
errors
by
the
district
pursuant
to
pursuant
to
3B1.1(a)
USSG
USSG
2D1.1(b)(1),
(2013),
and
role
adjustments
criminal
livelihood
the
Joneses
assert
that
their
below-Guidelines
The
discretion,
informed
by
judicial
factfinding,
does
United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107, 117 (3d Cir.) (Alleyne
10
did
not
curtail
sentencing
courts
ability
to
find
facts
Instead,
Moreover,
the
totality
Guidelines sentences.
of
circumstances
in
imposing
below-
these
and
reasons,
orders
of
we
affirm
forfeiture.
the
We
district
dispense
courts
with
oral
11