US v. Donald M. Boysaw, No. 06-5215 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5215 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD MILTON BOYSAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00128) Submitted: February 14, 2008 Decided: February 22, 2008 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Fay F. Spence, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Donald Milton Boysaw of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1) and ammunition (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and the district court sentenced Boysaw as an armed career criminal to 188 months of imprisonment. Boysaw appealed his convictions and sentence, challenging, inter alia, his armed career criminal classification on the grounds that the predicate convictions should not have been considered due to their age and that the district court violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by enhancing his sentence with convictions that were neither charged in the indictment nor admitted by him and by sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines system. Although this court held that [t]he district court properly determined that Boysaw qualified as an armed career criminal and that there was no Sixth Amendment error in the district court s reliance on the prior convictions, we concluded that the district court committed statutory Booker error by sentencing Boysaw under a mandatory guidelines scheme, vacated Boysaw s sentence, and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Boysaw, 198 F. App x 321, 324-26 (4th Cir. 2006) ( Boysaw I ), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 521 (2007) (No. 07-6723). On remand for resentencing, Boysaw renewed his objections to the armed career criminal designation, asserting that he was convicted of simple possession of cocaine. - 2 - Boysaw also contended that the district court did not follow Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), in determining that his prior convictions qualified as serious drug offenses for purposes of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), because the court did not require the government to provide certified copies of the state court judgments. overruled Boysaw s objections, departed The district court below the advisory sentencing guideline range of 188 to 235 months of imprisonment, and sentenced Boysaw to 180 mandatory minimum sentence. months in prison, the statutory Boysaw appeals the 180-month sentence imposed on remand. In criminal this appeal, designation on Boysaw the challenges ground that his the information not approved by Taylor and Shepard. armed court career relied on The Government asserts that Boysaw s claim is foreclosed by the decision in Boysaw I. We agree with the Government. In Boysaw I, we held that the district court properly designated Boysaw as an armed career criminal. Thus, we find that Boysaw s claim is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and that none of the exceptions applies. See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); see also Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. Clark Machinery Co., 510 F.3d 474, 481 (4th Cir. 2007) ( [A] remand proceeding is not the occasion for raising new arguments or legal theories. ); United - 3 - States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating that mandate rule forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court, as well as issues decided by the district court but foregone on appeal ). Accordingly, we affirm Boysaw s sentence. 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 - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
