United States v. Bradley James

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRADLEY MAURICE JAMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00050-F-2)

Submitted: June 17, 2011 Decided: July 20, 2011

Before DAVIS and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B.
Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Bradley Maurice James of one count of

possession with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms

of marijuana, and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 2, and one count of possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, id. § 924(c). On

appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the

§ 924(c) conviction and the sentence imposed by the district

court. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for

resentencing.

James argues that there is insufficient evidence in

the record to support his § 924(c) conviction. According to

James, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that he

possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting a jury verdict de novo. United States v.

Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2007). “A defendant

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy

burden.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir.

2007). We must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of

fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519

(4th Cir. 2005). We review both the direct and the

2
circumstantial evidence, and accord the government all

reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be

established. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th

Cir. 2008). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do

not review the credibility of the witnesses, and we assume that

the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor

of the government. Kelly, 510 F.3d at 440. We will disturb a

jury’s verdict only in those rare cases of clear failure by the

prosecution. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244–45.

To establish a violation of § 924(c), the government

must prove that the possessed firearm “furthered, advanced, or

helped forward a drug trafficking crime.” United States v.

Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002). Factors that might

lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the requisite

nexus existed between the firearm and the drug offense include:

“‘the type of drug activity that is being conducted,

accessibility of the firearm, the type of weapon . . ., whether

the gun is loaded, proximity to drugs or drug profits, and the

time and circumstances under which the gun is found.’” Id.

(quoting United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 414-15

(5th Cir. 2000)).

In our view, a rational trier of fact could have found

that James possessed the .40 caliber Glock handgun to further,

advance, or help forward his marijuana distribution operation.

3
Lomax, 293 F.3d at 705. Viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government and giving the government the

benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence, the

government demonstrated the following pieces of evidence at

trial: James ran a large-scale marijuana distribution operation

from his grandfather’s trailer, located in Leland, North

Carolina; during the November 5, 2007 search of the trailer,

approximately sixty-six kilograms of marijuana and other indicia

of drug trafficking were found in the trailer; of the sixty-six

kilograms, a large quantity of marijuana was found in the

kitchen, and much of this marijuana was packed in cellophane,

ready for distribution; James’ loaded .40 caliber Glock handgun

was found in his locked car, which was parked next to the

kitchen door to the trailer; the car contained $2,800.00 in drug

proceeds; next to James’ car were coolers containing 200 one-

pound and half-pound emptied “wrappings” with marijuana residue,

(J.A. 136); James ran away from the trailer as the police

officers approached the trailer; and firearms are used by drug

dealers to protect their drugs and money during drug

transactions. In the aggregate, these facts suggest a specific

nexus between James’ .40 caliber Glock handgun and the marijuana

distribution operation, namely, that James kept the handgun in

the car to protect him, his drugs, and his money when

transacting business at the trailer. Lomax, 293 F.3d at 705.

4
 James also challenges his sentence. He argues that

his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district

court never addressed his request for a sentence below the

Guidelines range on his marijuana conviction. At sentencing,

counsel for James asked the district court to sentence James

“below the bottom of the guideline range” (51 to 63 months) on

the marijuana conviction, because of the mandatory sixty-month

consecutive sentence the district court had to impose on the

§ 924(c) conviction, the weakness of the government’s case on

both the marijuana count and the § 924(c) count, and James’

insignificant criminal record.

Because James argued for a sentence different than the

one imposed by the district court, he preserved his claim, and

our review is under the abuse of discretion standard. United

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). If we

determine that the district court abused its discretion, we will

vacate the sentence unless the error is harmless. Id. at 576.

A district court commits procedural sentencing error

by “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In evaluating the

district court’s explanation for the sentence imposed, we have

held that, although the district court must consider the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and explain the sentence, it need not

explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the

5
record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.

2006). However, the district court “must make an individualized

assessment based on the facts presented” and apply the “relevant

§ 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case

before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th

Cir. 2009) (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis

omitted). The district court must also “state in open court the

particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence” and “set

forth enough to satisfy” us that it has “considered the parties’

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own

legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). The reasons articulated by the

district court need not be “couched in the precise language of

§ 3553(a),” as long as the reasons “can be matched to a factor

appropriate for consideration under that statute and [are]

clearly tied to [the defendant’s] particular situation.” United

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007).

In this case, the district court erred by failing to

offer any explanation concerning its chosen sentence. Under

this circumstance, appellate review is impossible, and the error

is not harmless.

For these reasons, we affirm James’ convictions,

vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

6
adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED

7