United States v. Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2002)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DENNIS HAMILTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICKEY BAILEY, a/k/a Mitchell
Hayward Bailey,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4676
No. 01-4619
Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-00-45)
Submitted: June 10, 2002
Decided: June 25, 2002
Before WILKINS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
No. 00-4676 affirmed and No. 01-4619 affirmed in part, vacated in

part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
UNITED STATES v. HAMILTON
COUNSEL
D. Rodney Kight, Jr., KIGHT LAW OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina; Robert E. Hensley, Jr., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellants. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Hamilton (No. 00-4676) and Mickey Bailey (No. 01-4619),
co-conspirators, appeal their convictions and sentences on one count
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine
(Hamilton), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana (Bailey), in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 846 (West 1999). Following a jury trial, the district court sentenced Hamilton to 120
months imprisonment. Bailey was sentenced on a guilty plea to 97
months imprisonment. Hamilton also was sentenced to five years, and
Bailey to three years, of supervised release, and both were assessed
mandatory special assessments. Both timely appealed.
On appeal, Hamilton claims that he was denied a fair trial by allegedly prejudicial comments made by the government during closing
argument. Specifically he claims error in the prosecutors reference to
his name appearing in a notebook of drug contacts used by another
conspirator, after the notebooks owner was unable to locate Hamiltons name in the notebook during his trial testimony. We have held
prosecutorial misconduct to be reversible where the prosecutors
remarks were in fact improper, and where such improper comments
prejudicially affected the defendants substantial rights such that he
is deprived of a fair trial. United States v. Mitchell, 1 F.3d 235, 240
(4th Cir. 1993). Our review here is for plain error because Hamilton
failed to object below. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d
235, 239 (4th Cir. 1998).
The witness testified at trial that he "probably" had written Hamiltons name in the notebook, but that he was unable to "see it right offhand." In closing argument, Hamiltons attorney initiated the
discussion of the notebook, and then the prosecutor referenced the
notebook where the witness kept notes of his drug transactions, stating that it reflected two dates after which Hamiltons name appeared.
We find that the prosecutors remarks were neither improper nor
did they impugn the integrity of Hamiltons conviction. The notebook
was a trial exhibit, thereby providing evidentiary support for the prosecutions statements. Moreover, the contested remarks were made by
the prosecutor during rebuttal and in response to Hamiltons counsels
closing remarks where he initiated discussion of the notebook and the
witnesss failure to locate Hamiltons name in it. Finally, even assuming, arguendo, the statement was improper, we find that the statements did not prejudicially affect Hamiltons substantial rights such
that he was deprived of a fair trial, given the other evidence against
him, which included the testimony of five witnesses who testified
they saw Hamilton sell drugs. Accordingly, we affirm Hamiltons
conviction and sentence.
Baileys sole claim on appeal is that his ninety-seven month sentence on a single count of conspiring to distribute marijuana violates
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the indictment
charged him with an unspecified amount of marijuana. The United
States filed a separate information pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. 841(b)
(West 1999 & Supp. 2002), alleging more than 1000 kilograms of
marijuana. Bailey pled guilty to the charge without a written plea
agreement, specifically reserving the right to contest the drug amount.
At his sentencing hearing, Bailey lodged a timely objection pursuant
to Apprendi.
The district judge found by a preponderance of evidence, consistent
with the statements in the presentence investigation report, that the
amount of marijuana involved in the conspiracy to which Bailey pled
guilty was 1216 kilograms, and sentenced Bailey to ninety-seven

months. The United States has confessed error by the district court
relative to Baileys sentence because his prison sentence exceeds the
statutory maximum sentence of sixty months under 21 U.S.C.A.
841(b)(1)(D) (West Supp. 2002). See, e.g., United States v. Cromartie, 267 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001).
We affirm Baileys conviction. However, because it is clear that
Baileys sentence violates Apprendi, we vacate his sentence and
remand the case 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.
No. 00-4676 - AFFIRMED
No. 01-4619 - AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

United States v. Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2002)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2002)

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. Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2002)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appeals from the United States District Court

No. 00-4676 affirmed and No. 01-4619 affirmed in part, vacated in

UNITED STATES v. HAMILTON

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

UNITED STATES v. HAMILTON

UNITED STATES v. HAMILTON

guilty was 1216 kilograms, and sentenced Bailey to ninety-seven

You might also like