US v. Robert Sykes, Jr., No. 16-4206 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4206 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM SYKES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00458-MJG-1) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, David Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert William Sykes, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012) (Hobbs Act). The district court Sykes to 72 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. sentenced Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Sykes first argues that the district court erred in declining to reduce his offense level for the second count by three levels § 2X1.1(b)(1) calculations under U.S. (2016). under In the Sentencing reviewing Guidelines, “we Guidelines the Manual district court’s review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Cir. 2010) United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 2X1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines provides: If an attempt, decrease by [three] levels, unless the defendant completed all the acts the defendant believed necessary for successful completion of the substantive offense or the circumstances demonstrate that the defendant was about to complete all such acts but for apprehension or interruption by some similar event beyond the defendant’s control. “The commentary to § 2X1.1 explicitly states that the reduction is intended for cases in which the defendant is arrested well before he offense.” has completed the acts necessary to commit the United States v. Shakur, 7 F. App’x 289, 290 (4th Cir. 2001) (No. 00-4755). 2 Section 1951(a) prohibits obstructing, delaying, or affecting, in any way, the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by robbery or extortion, attempt or conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion, or threats of physical violence. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). “A Hobbs Act crime, then, has two elements: (1) robbery or extortion, and (2) interference with commerce.” 2014) United States v. Taylor, 754 F.3d 217, 222 (4th Cir. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The Hobbs Act defines robbery as the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, to his person or property at the time of the taking or obtaining.” United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 922 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). and the district relevant court We have thoroughly reviewed the record legal did not authorities err in and calculating conclude the that offense the level under the Guidelines. Sykes also argues that the court erred in denying his motion for a downward departure under USSG § 4A1.3(b) because his criminal history category overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history. sentencing court’s mistakenly believed “We are unable, however, to review a decision that it not to lacked depart the unless authority the to do court so.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). 3 Here, it is clear that the district court did not misapprehend its authority “cannot to contest downward.” grant on such appeal a departure. the court’s Therefore, failure to Sykes depart Id. at 306. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in 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.
