US v. Bradley James, No. 10-4158 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRADLEY MAURICE JAMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00050-F-2) Submitted: June 17, 2011 Before DAVIS and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 20, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Bradley Maurice James of one count of possession with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms of marijuana, and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 2, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking id. crime, § 924(c). On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the § 924(c) conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing. James argues that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support his § 924(c) conviction. According to James, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that he possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. We review a challenge to the sufficiency evidence supporting a jury verdict de novo. Kelly, 510 challenging burden. 2007). F.3d the 433, 440 (4th sufficiency of Cir. the 2007). evidence of the United States v. A faces defendant a heavy United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. We must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 We review 2 both the direct and the circumstantial evidence, and accord the government all reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be established. Cir. 2008). United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses, and we assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. Kelly, 510 F.3d at 440. We will disturb a jury s verdict only in those rare cases of clear failure by the prosecution. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244 45. To establish a violation of § 924(c), the government must prove that the possessed firearm furthered, advanced, or helped forward a drug trafficking crime. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Factors that might lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the requisite nexus existed between the firearm and the drug offense include: the type of drug activity that is being conducted, accessibility of the firearm, the type of weapon . . ., whether the gun is loaded, proximity to drugs or drug profits, and the time and circumstances under which the gun is found. Id. (quoting United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2000)). In our view, a rational trier of fact could have found that James possessed the .40 caliber Glock handgun to further, advance, or help forward his marijuana distribution operation. 3 Lomax, 293 F.3d at 705. favorable benefit to of the all government Viewing the evidence in the light most government reasonable demonstrated and giving inferences the the from following government the evidence, the the pieces of evidence at trial: James ran a large-scale marijuana distribution operation from his grandfather s trailer, located in Leland, North Carolina; during the November 5, 2007 search of the trailer, approximately sixty-six kilograms of marijuana and other indicia of drug trafficking were found in the trailer; of the sixty-six kilograms, a large quantity of marijuana was found in the kitchen, and much of this marijuana was packed in cellophane, ready for distribution; James loaded .40 caliber Glock handgun was found in his locked car, which was parked next to the kitchen door to the trailer; the car contained $2,800.00 in drug proceeds; next to James car were coolers containing 200 onepound and half-pound emptied wrappings with marijuana residue, (J.A. 136); James ran away from the trailer as the police officers approached the trailer; and firearms are used by drug dealers to transactions. protect their drugs and money during drug In the aggregate, these facts suggest a specific nexus between James .40 caliber Glock handgun and the marijuana distribution operation, namely, that James kept the handgun in the car to protect him, his drugs, transacting business at the trailer. 4 and his money when Lomax, 293 F.3d at 705. James also challenges his sentence. He argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court never addressed his request for a sentence Guidelines range on his marijuana conviction. below the At sentencing, counsel for James asked the district court to sentence James below the bottom of the guideline range (51 to 63 months) on the marijuana conviction, because of the mandatory sixty-month consecutive sentence the district court had to impose on the § 924(c) conviction, the weakness of the government s case on both the marijuana count and the § 924(c) count, and James insignificant criminal record. Because James argued for a sentence different than the one imposed by the district court, he preserved his claim, and our review is under the abuse of discretion standard. United States If v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). we determine that the district court abused its discretion, we will vacate the sentence unless the error is harmless. Id. at 576. A district court commits procedural sentencing error by failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In Gall v. evaluating the district court s explanation for the sentence imposed, we have held that, although the district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and explain the sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the 5 United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. record. 2006). However, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors before it. Cir. 2009) omitted). to the specific circumstances of the case United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis The district court must also state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence and set forth enough to satisfy us that it has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. Id. (citations and internal quotation reasons marks omitted). The articulated by the district court need not be couched in the precise language of § 3553(a), as long as the reasons can be matched to a factor appropriate for consideration under that statute and clearly tied to [the defendant s] particular situation. [are] United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007). In this case, the district court erred by failing to offer any explanation concerning its chosen sentence. Under this circumstance, appellate review is impossible, and the error is not harmless. For these reasons, we affirm James convictions, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 6 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED 7
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.
