US v. Darrell Wright, No. 12-4878 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4878 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Bugg, a/k/a Derrick Antonio Wright, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00040-JFA-4) Submitted: May 28, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Craig, CRAIG LAW FIRM, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell armed robbery, Wright 18 pled U.S.C. guilty to § 1951(a) conspiracy (2006), and to commit aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2 (2006). a sentence conspiracy thirty-seven conviction sentence for contending played of the that more enhancement Guidelines for minor imprisonment consecutive court erred role was abduction in Wright in applicable. §§ 3B1.2(b), the for the eighty-four-month conviction. district a Manual a § 924(c) the than and months He received appeals, ruling offenses he that and U.S. 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) that an Sentencing (2011). We affirm. Wright was employed at a Wild Wing Cafe in Columbia, South Carolina. He agreed to help Jamario Turnipseed, and Carl Woods rob the restaurant. information about security at the restaurant, Ford, Alfred Wright provided who would be present, the location of the manager s office, and where they would find the safe. Wright s role was to open the back door when the robbers knocked, but the manager unexpectedly went out the back door to the dumpster, where the robbers had assembled. They forced the manager back inside the building at gunpoint and ordered him to take them to the office and open the safe. the way to the office, the robbers 2 encountered Wright On and another employee, who were told to lie on the floor. Turnipseed stole safe, a cell phone from the employee. From the the robbers obtained a total of $9956. Although the probation officer recommended that Wright had a minor role in the offenses, the district court determined that Wright § 3B1.2(b). was more than a minor participant, see USSG The court also overruled Wright s objection to an enhancement for the abduction of a person to facilitate the offense, see USSG § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). We review sentences for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Guidelines Although range role is a significant adjustments are Gall v. Miscalculation of the procedural generally error. reviewed for Id. clear error, see United States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1147 (4th Cir. 1996), when the facts are not contested, the issue is a legal one and review is de novo. United States v. Butner, 277 F.3d 481, 488 (4th Cir. 2002). A adjustment defendant if he is average participant. is eligible substantially for less a mitigating culpable USSG § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). than role the The minor role adjustment applies to a defendant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal. USSG § 3B1.2(b) cmt. n.5. 3 While the determination of whether the defendant played a minor role depends in part on a comparison of his conduct with that of other participants, the critical inquiry is . . . not just whether the defendant has done fewer bad acts than his co-defendants, but whether the defendant s conduct is material or essential to committing the offense. United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that a court must measure defendant s individual acts and relative culpability offense) (citations omitted). against the elements of the The defendant has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he played a minor role in the offense. United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999). Applying these principles, we conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that the minor role adjustment was not applicable in Wright s case. material assistance to the robbers by Wright provided giving them critical information about security at the restaurant and its operation, and assurance that they would have easy access at the back door. This level of participation and culpability was not minimal. With respect to the abduction enhancement, a victim is abducted if he is different location. forced to accompany an offender USSG § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(A). to a [M]ovement within the confines of a single building can constitute movement to a different location . . . . 4 United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, omitted), 389-90 and abduction for (4th even a Cir. 2008) temporary (internal abduction quotation can marks constitute purposes of the sentencing guidelines. States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003 (4th Cir. 1996). an United We have adopted a flexible, case by case approach to determining when movement to a different location has occurred. Osborne, 514 F.3d at 390. (internal quotation marks omitted). Wright contends that the robbers forced movement of the manager from outside to his office inside the restaurant in committing the robbery was not clearly an abduction within the meaning of the Guidelines, as interpreted in Osborne, and that the district court should have conducted a more nuanced analysis of the robbers actions. Wright also claims that the movement of the manager was not sufficient to constitute an abduction and that, in any case, the robbers action was not reasonably foreseeable to him, as required under USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), for it to be relevant conduct. However, the district court found that, even if the robbery had gone according to plan and Wright had opened the back door to admit his associates, they would likely have had to order the manager to go from a location inside the restaurant to the office so he could open the safe. We are satisfied that the district court s finding on this point was not clearly erroneous or unduly forced movement of the manager by the 5 speculative. Thus, the robbers to execute the robbery that the that the We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. district was foreseeable We court did not to err Wright. in so We conclude concluding, and abduction enhancement applied. 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 6
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.
