Summary
addressing Petitioner's appeal of his original sentence
Summary of this case from Coleman v. U.S.Opinion
Nos. 03-4280, 03-4281, 03-4480, 04-1262.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 27, 2007.
Opinion Filed: December 13, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, (D.C.Crim. Nos. 02-cr-00320-1, 02-cr-00320-2, 02-cr-00320-3, 02-00320-4), District Judge: The Honorable Anne E. Thompson.
George S. Leone, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, Glenn J. Moramarco, Office of United States Attorney, Camden, NJ, for United States of America.
Robert DiDio, Kew Gardens, NY, for Lacy J. Goggans.
John M. Holliday, Trenton, NJ, for Trenell J. Coleman.
Estelle J. Roond, Jamaica, NY, for Ronald Blackwell.
Before BARRY, FUENTES and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
On September 12, 2002, a federal grand jury sitting in Trenton, New Jersey returned a second superseding indictment ("the indictment") charging Lacy Goggans, Ronald Blackwell, Trenell Coleman, and Ryan Washington with one count of conspiracy to commit bank robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, one count of attempted bank robbery in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2, and two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 2. The indictment also charged Goggans, Coleman, and Washington with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 2. Following a jury verdict of guilty on all counts, the District Court sentenced Goggans, Blackwell, Coleman, and Washington to terms of imprisonment of 594-months (49 years, 6 months), 444-months (37 years), 572-months (47 years, 8 months), and 619-months (51 years, 7 months), respectively. Each sentence included two mandatory-consecutive sentences totaling 32 years: a 7-year sentence for using and carrying a firearm in the course of the conspiracy, and a 25-year sentence for using and carrying a firearm in the course of the attempted robbery.
Appellants raise a number of issues on appeal. First, they challenge seven of the District Court's evidentiary rulings. Specifically, appellants claim that the District Court erred by: (a) denying their motions to suppress physical evidence seized from their persons and vehicles during the course of their arrests; (b) allowing the government to introduce expert testimony regarding fingerprint comparison and analysis; (c) permitting the government to introduce expert testimony concerning DNA evidence; (d) excluding the lay opinion testimony of New York City Police Officer Mark Grogan; (e) allowing the government to admit into evidence a newspaper clipping with a bank surveillance photo showing Washington using a stolen ATM card; (f) allowing the government to introduce expert testimony respecting the modus operandi of the nine bank robberies; and (g) limiting and then subsequently striking portions of the testimony of a fingerprint expert called by the defense.
We have jurisdiction to review the convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
Second, appellants argue that the evidence as to one or more counts was insufficient. Third, appellants assert that the District Judge improperly conveyed an opinion of guilt to the jury by exhibiting clear bias against them throughout the course of the trial. Fourth, appellants challenge their sentences. The primary sentencing issues raised are: (a) whether the phrase "any crime of violence" contained in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is ambiguous as to the allowable unit of prosecution; (b) whether the District Court erred by imposing two mandatory consecutive sentences totalling 32 years on each of them pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (c) whether the District Court erred, when sentencing them, by treating the United States Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory.
Appellants also raise a host of other Guidelines-related sentencing issues. Because we must remand for resentencing under the Guidelines, we decline to address these issues in this appeal.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that appellants' judicial bias and evidentiary arguments are without merit. We also believe that there was ample evidence to support the jury's finding of guilt on each count. We will, therefore, affirm the judgments of conviction.
As for the sentences, the government concedes that the District Court sentenced appellants for their conspiracy, attempted bank robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm convictions by mandatorily applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Therefore, pursuant to United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 165-66 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc), we will vacate the sentences as to those convictions and remand for resentencing.
We note that Blackwell was not indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and thus was not convicted of nor sentenced for this offense.
Goggans, Coleman, and Washington were sentenced on October 14, 2003, while Blackwell was sentenced on January 16, 2004. The Supreme Court did not file its opinion in Booker until January 12, 2005.
Notwithstanding our holding that the District Court must resentence the defendants under Booker on the conspiracy, attempted bank robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm convictions, we will affirm the District Court's imposition of both the 7-year mandatory-consecutive sentences and the 25-year mandatory-consecutive sentences based on each of their two convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. See United States v. Williams, 464 F.3d 443, 449 (3d Cir. 2006) (vacating sentence imposed for conspiracy conviction and remanding for re-sentencing pursuant to Booker, but affirming 10-year sentence imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense because it was a statutorily required mandatory minimum, not a sentence imposed pursuant to the Guidelines). The District Court did not err in imposing these sentences.