US v. Frank Candiloro, No. 08-4585 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4585 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FRANK VINCENT CANDILORO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00444-HEH-1) Submitted: March 30, 2009 Decided: April 14, 2009 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank Vincent Candiloro pled guilty to being a felon in possession 18 U.S.C. §§ of firearms 922(g)(1), and (g)(9) ammunition, (2006). in At violation sentencing, of the district court determined that an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal appropriate. statutory Act The district mandatory imprisonment. ( ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. court minimum § 924(e) sentenced sentence (2006), Candiloro of fifteen to was the years Candiloro timely noted his appeal. On appeal, Candiloro argues that the district court erred in applying the ACCA enhancement because his two Virginia convictions for unlawful wounding do not qualify as predicate, violent felony convictions for sentencing under the ACCA. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). See This court reviews de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate conviction for the ACCA. United States v. Williams, 326 F.3d 535, 537 (4th Cir. 2003). Candiloro argues that the plain meaning of the phrase by any means in the unlawful wounding statute, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-51 (2004), encompasses conduct that does not involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Although the phrase by any means standing alone could possibly be given the broad interpretation Candiloro argues for, the phrase 2 has been narrowed by See Harris v. Commonwealth, 142 established Virginia precedent. S.E. 354, 355 (1928); Harper v. Commonwealth, 85 S.E.2d 249, 255 (1955) (quoting Davis Criminal Law 353, 354). Moreover, Candiloro fails to bring to our attention a single Virginia case that would support his interpretation of by any means. In light of the authoritative interpretation Virginia courts have given § 18.2-51, the district court did not err in sentencing Candiloro. court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
