US v. Trenton Raley, No. 13-4082 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRENTON JAQUAN RALEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00293-MOC-2) Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: September 16, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Trenton written plea Jaquan agreement, Raley to pled Hobbs guilty, pursuant robbery and Act to aiding a and abetting same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 & 2 (2006), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) & 2 (2006). The district court granted a downward departure and sentenced Raley to sixty-seven months imprisonment. On appeal, Raley raises his two constitutional challenges to convictions. Finding no error, we affirm. Raley first contends that, by charging him with Hobbs Act robbery, the Government deprived him of due process by interfering with his right to a speedy trial in state court. Raley s due indictment process delay; to claim the essentially extent that is he a claim raises a of pre- claim of infringement on his right to a speedy trial in federal court under the Sixth Amendment, any delay is wholly irrelevant because only a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints criminal charge provision. imposed engage by the arrest and particular holding to protections answer of a that United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788 (1977) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Moreover, we conclude that any claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment fails because Raley has not demonstrated that he 2 was actually prejudiced by any delay between the date of his offenses and the federal grand jury s indictment, see id. at 789-90, and because, where a defendant violates both state and federal laws, either or both can prosecute the defendant. United States v. Smith, 30 F.3d 568, 572 (4th Cir. 1994). Raley also contends that the Hobbs Act as applied to his case was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction over his case. The Hobbs Act provides for the punishment of anyone who in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). This statute applies to all commerce between states, United States possessions and territories, and the District of Columbia. U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3). manifesting a 18 The Hobbs Act speaks in broad language, purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence. interference in any way or degree. The Act outlaws such Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215 (1960) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude to that interstate the commerce indictment to alleged prosecute sufficient under the nexus Hobbs Act, satisfying the jurisdictional requirements of that statute. See 3 Raley a United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2003) (discussing Hobbs Act). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 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.
