US v. Johnny Fancher, No. 08-5187 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY RAY FANCHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00013-REM-JSK-1) Submitted: April 30, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and Benson Everett LEGG, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, David J. Perri, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: This case is before the court after resentencing on remand. In our previous decision, we found error in the district court s failure to provide advance notice that it was considering accordingly an vacated variance in Fancher s sentencing sentence and Fancher. We remanded for United States v. Fancher, 513 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. resentencing. 2008). upward On remand, the district court provided advance notice that it was again considering an upward variance, conducted the resentencing hearing, and again sentenced Fancher statutory maximum 480 months of imprisonment. not, however, provide Fancher an opportunity to the The court did to address the court prior to the imposition of sentence, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). the district court did not Counsel for Fancher objected, but take corrective action. Fancher timely appealed. On appeal, Fancher argues that his due process rights were violated by the district court s failure to offer him the opportunity to speak, and that his sentence is unreasonable. The Government concedes that the district reversible error in failing to allow allocution. court committed This court has held that a district court commits plain error if it does not afford the defendant resentencing hearing. an opportunity to allocute at a United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 2 250 (4th Cir. 2007). There is, however, no per se rule of reversal when the district court denies a defendant s right to allocute under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). Muhammad, 478 F.3d at 249. determine Instead, the court should examine each case to whether the error was prejudicial. Id. (quoting United States v. Cole, 27 F.3d 996, 999 (4th Cir. 1994)). In because Muhammad, Muhammad the failed court to applied object counsel opportunity to specifically allocute, and the error district Id. at 249. failure to allow him to allocute. however, to plain objected cited to Rule review court s In this case, the of an Therefore, 32. lack the Government has the burden of demonstrating that any error was harmless, which requires a showing that the court s error did not affect Fancher s sentence. 208, 223 (4th Cir. 2005). carry its burden, but committed reversible defendant the United States v. White, 405 F.3d The Government does not attempt to acknowledges error opportunity when to it speak that the neglected on his own District to Court afford behalf the before imposing sentence. Accordingly, we vacate Fancher s sentence and remand for resentencing. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
