US v. Jamal Hicks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAL HICKS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-10088-GMW)
January 28, 2009
February 27, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis Dene, DENE & DENE, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jamal Hicks appeals his sentence on remand from his conviction for assaulting a federal correctional officer, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), 111(b) (2006). 1
consideration of the presentence investigation report ("PSR"), 2 the arguments and objections of counsel, the statements made by Hicks, U.S.C. below and the relevant (2006), sentencing the factors court in set forth in 18
§ 3553(a) the
sentenced PSR to
Hicks forty and
recommended years of
ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,167.52. Hicks noted a timely appeal, and the sole error he raises on appeal is that the district court erred in
resentencing him pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 2A2.2 (2003). district court's Specifically, he asserts error in the of the aggravated assault
On November 15, 2005, we affirmed his conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The probation officer who prepared the PSR on resentencing concluded that Hicks should be sentenced at a total offense level of twenty, and a criminal history category of IV, with an attendant sentencing range of fifty-one to sixty-three months' imprisonment.
guideline, claiming the officer did not sustain serious bodily injury. 3 The charge arose on August 31, 2003, when Hicks
punched Corrections Officer Brian Doyle in his left eye while passing through the metal detector in Lee and the at the United Virginia. the judge, States The as
Correctional assault was
Facility-US-Lee, captured at trial. on
camera, Hicks hit Officer Doyle a second time on his left cheek. As a result of the assault, Officer Doyle's left eye was swollen shut, and he received medical treatment at the
institution as well as x-rays and treatment at a local hospital emergency room. Officer Doyle attested that he thereafter had
to return to the facility to prepare a report, after which he was relieved of his duty and sent home, as he was unable to perform his job because of the swelling and impaired vision of his left eye. He further attested that the vision in his left
eye was "very, very blurred" and that the bruising was "very
We find Hicks' alternative argument, that USSG § 2A2.3 may be applicable, to be without merit. Under the guidelines, for convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 111, Hicks' offense of conviction, Appendix A directs the court to utilize either USSG § 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault) or § 2A2.4 (Obstructing or Impeding Officers). USSG, App. A (2003). Hence, application of USSG § 2A2.3, as Hicks argues, would have been inappropriate, as that section relates to assault statutes not at issue here.
following the assault off from work, when he returned to work thereafter, he was given office work to do, as he was unable to perform his regular duties because of his impaired vision.
Officer Doyle testified that he suffered from blurred vision, a splitting headache for a week, and that he had to take off three days of sick leave as a result of his injuries. four months after the for assault, blurred Officer Doyle Approximately sought further and
The bruising from the assault was so significant as
to still be evident at the time of trial, almost six months later. We review a sentence imposed by the district court "under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." United
States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007)). In reviewing
guideline determinations, we review questions of law de novo, and questions of fact for clear error. 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir. 2006). "Aggravated assault" is defined under the guidelines as "a felonious assault that involved (A) a dangerous weapon with intent to cause bodily injury . . . with that weapon; (B) serious bodily injury; or (C) 4 an intent to commit another United States v. Green,
USSG § 2A2.2, App. Note 1 (2003).
injury," is defined, in pertinent part, as "injury involving extreme physical pain or the protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty." Id. USSG
§ 1B1.1, App. Note 1(L)(2003). Given injuries, we the find nature no and duration in of the Officer district Doyle's court's
determination that these injuries were sufficiently serious so as to constitute "serious bodily injury" under the definition provided for in the guidelines. Accordingly, the district
court's application of § 2A2.2 was not erroneous. We therefore affirm Hicks' sentence. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?