US v. Samuel Manning, No. 08-16 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL MANNING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00081-JBF-JEB-2) Argued: December 3, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Jon Michael Babineau, RIDDICK BABINEAU, PC, Suffolk, Virginia; Lawrence Hunter Woodward, Jr., SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Brian James Samuels, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Eric M. Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: The question in this case is whether a superseding indictment for Samuel Manning s involvement in a drug conspiracy violates the conviction for conspiracy. the Double Jeopardy Clause participating in a because of separately his prior charged drug The district court determined by a preponderance of evidence that these two conspiracies were separate and distinct and held accordingly that the government was not barred from prosecuting him in this case. We review the district court s factual finding for clear error. United States v. McHan, 966 F.2d 134, 138-39 (4th Cir. 1992). On September 11, 2006, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Manning things, conspiring heroin under Conspiracy ). conspiracy the and to four co-defendants distribute leadership of with, cocaine, Kasine among cocaine Powers other base, (the and Powers On November 9, 2006, Manning pled guilty to the charge and a related count and was subsequently sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. On August 14, 2007, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Manning with, among other things, conspiring to distribute Conspiracy ). cocaine base with Donald the (the Smith Manning filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds. hearing, Smith district court denied 2 Following an evidentiary the motion. This interlocutory appeal followed pursuant to Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977). The district court applied this court s precedent in United States v. Ragins, 840 F.2d 1184, 1188-89 (4th Cir. 1998) to the letter -- determining whether the two conspiracies were in fact the same circumstances. In conspiracy the under court s the view, totality Manning of made the a non- frivolous showing that the two conspiracies were the same: the time periods conspiracies of the occurred involved cocaine base. two in conspiracies Newport News, overlapped, Virginia, both and both But the court ultimately determined that the two conspiracies were separate by a preponderance of the evidence. in the It emphasized four factors. two conspiracies were, apart First, the participants from Manning, unique. Second, Manning s personal involvement in the Powers Conspiracy dealt with heroin, but his involvement in the Smith Conspiracy dealt with cocaine base. Smith Conspiracy Conspiracy. Third, Manning s participation in the predated his involvement in the Powers Fourth, the two conspiracies differed in scope and organization; while the Smith Conspiracy was simply an agreement between Manning and Smith to distribute cocaine base, the Powers Conspiracy consisted of a large network distributed various drugs for Kasine Powers. 3 of individuals who In light of these factors, it was not clear error for the district court to find that the two conspiracies were separate and distinct. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.
