US v. Sammy Mim, No. 10-4313 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SAMMY DAVIS MIMS, Defendant Appellant. No. 10-4383 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FREDDIE LEE CURRY, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00729-MBS-5; 1:08-cr-00729-MBS-4) Submitted: June 28, 2011 Decided: July 1, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James T. McBratney, III, McBRATNEY LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Michael W. Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellants. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, J.D. Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sammy Davis Mims and Freddie Lee Curry appeal their convictions following a jury trial. Both Mims and Curry were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute (2006). of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 Mims was also convicted of being a felon in possession three firearms, in 924(a)(2) and 924(e). violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), Curry was also convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2010); quantity of and with base cocaine possession a and intent quantity to of distribute marijuana, a in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(1)(D). The court sentenced Mims to 240 months imprisonment and Curry to 360 months imprisonment. We affirm. Mims argues that the district court erred in failing to retroactively apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to Mims sentence. However, the Act does not apply retroactively. United States v. Bullard, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1718894, at *11 (4th Cir. May 6, 2011). Because Mims was convicted and sentenced before the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act, it does not apply to his case. Curry argues that (1) the district court deprived him of due process by prohibiting defense counsel, during closing 3 argument, from challenging portions of Special Agent Morlan s testimony; (2) the Government improperly vouched for Morlan s credibility; (3) the district court erred in attributing to Curry a four-level leadership sentencing enhancement, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 3B1.1(a) (2008), and (4) the district court erred in attributing to Curry a twolevel possession of a dangerous weapon sentencing enhancement, pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). We reject each claim. With respect to Curry s first argument, the district court is afforded broad discretion in controlling closing arguments and is to be reversed only when there is a clear abuse United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 226 of its discretion. (4th Cir. 2010). We find that Curry has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in limiting Curry s closing arguments to facts supported by the record. We review Curry s second argument de novo because he raises a question of law. 304, 307 Government (4th Cir. improperly United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 2005). vouched We hold for the that even assuming credibility of the Special Agent Morlan, any error was harmless in light of the quantity of evidence supporting Curry s conviction. Finally, we review for clear error Curry s third and fourth arguments, that the court erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to USSG §§ 3B1.1(a) and 2D1.1(b)(1). 4 See United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147-48 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err because both enhancements are supported by evidence in the record. We therefore affirm the convictions and sentences of Mims and Curry. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
