US v. Kendall Schuyler, No. 10-4285 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENDALL SCHUYLER, a/k/a Sleepy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-BEL-13) Submitted: December 2, 2010 Decided: January 7, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sicilia Chinn Englert, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Robert R. Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kendall Schuyler appeals the third amended judgment of conviction, claiming that the district court erred by applying the presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines sentence. He also claims his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the court considered uncharged conduct in determining the Guidelines sentence and that the drug quantity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm. This court reviews the district court s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration of procedural reasonableness of both a the sentence. Id. at and 51. substantive In determining procedural reasonableness, this court first assesses whether the district range. court properly Id. at 49, 51. calculated the defendant s Guidelines The court must then consider whether the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any arguments presented by the parties, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to explain sufficiently the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). reviews whether the district court made assessment based on the facts presented. 2 This court also an individualized Gall, 552 U.S. at 50; see United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that, while the individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular meaningful case . . . and appellate review [be] adequate (internal to permit quotation marks omitted)). When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, this court takes into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. This court accords a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). At the same time, the district court may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable but must make an individualized assessment Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. based on the facts presented. The presumption of reasonableness is an appellate court presumption . . . . [T]he sentencing court does not enjoy the benefit of a legal presumption that the Guidelines sentence should apply. 351 (2007). courts Rita because Guidelines. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, presumptions they confer are the forbidden force of in law sentencing upon the United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). If a sentencing court applies a Rita presumption, the sentence is procedurally unreasonable. 216-17. 3 Id. at Procedural errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error. 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d In order to show that there was plain error, Schuyler must show (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights. United States 2009). v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. This court retains discretion to correct the error and will do so only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 343 (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). In error. this instance, we conclude there was no plain Assuming without deciding that the district court did apply a presumption of reasonableness, we note that Schuyler received the agreed-upon sentence. Thus, his substantial rights were not affected. We also conclude Schuyler s right to a jury trial was not violated when the district court applied the cross-reference for murder when it determined Schuyler s Guidelines sentence. A sentencing court may rely on uncharged facts in determining an appropriate sentence within the statutory range. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005). United States Also, after Booker, this court has already stated that a sentencing court continues to make those factual findings concerning sentencing factors by a 4 preponderance of the evidence United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 570 (4th Cir.); cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 645 (2009). In addition, we conclude that Schuyler s claim that the drug quantity was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence is moot because, given the cross-reference for murder, the drug quantity has no bearing on Schuyler s Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 5

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.