US v. Furman Quattlebaum

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:02-cr-00548-CMC-17 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998566263].. [08-4777]

Case: 08-4777

Document: 78

Date Filed: 04/12/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FURMAN BENJAMIN QUATTLEBAUM,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
RANDY MARTIN; LUTHER BRYAN; ALISIA H. AKBAR; LACARIA BROWN;
GEORGEAN
MCCONNELL;
GUSSIE
D.
NOLLKAMPER;
FLORENCE
NOLLKAMPER; CHRISTOPHER M. MORRIS; LAVACA COUNTY TEXAS;
JOSEPH E. MCCONNELL; JOHN M. WARTHER; WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED; CHERYL L. AMAKER; DONNA C. ADKINS;
CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Parties-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-17)

Submitted:

April 6, 2011

Decided:

April 12, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and John Preston
BAILEY, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern
District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Case: 08-4777

Document: 78

Date Filed: 04/12/2011

Page: 2

James A. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JIM BROWN, Beaufort, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Jane B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 08-4777

Document: 78

Date Filed: 04/12/2011

Page: 3

PER CURIAM:
Furman Benjamin Quattlebaum was convicted by a jury of
conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and
fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006), and was sentenced to life in prison.
Quattlebaum appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence.
We

affirmed

Quattlebaum’s

conviction

and

rejected

claims

relating to his sentence, but because he was sentenced under the
then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, vacated and remanded for
resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
See

United

States

v.

Davis,

270 F. App’x

236

(4th

Cir.

March 17, 2008) (unpublished) (“Davis I”).
On

remand,

the

district

court

imposed

variant sentence and Quattlebaum timely appealed.

a

300-month

Quattlebaum

asserts that the district court erred when it calculated his
Guidelines range on remand because, according to Quattlebaum,
the district court was required to apply the 2007 Amendments to
U.S.

Sentencing

(setting
offenses

forth

Guidelines
method

involving

substances).

for

Manual

2D1.1

determining

cocaine

Quattlebaum

§

base

also

cmt.

base
and

asserts

10(D)

offense
other

that

(2008)

level

in

controlled

defense

counsel

rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to object to the
district court’s allegedly improper Guidelines range calculation

3

Case: 08-4777

on remand.

Document: 78

Date Filed: 04/12/2011

Page: 4

Finding no error, we affirm the district court’s

judgment.
We

find

that

any

arguments

pertaining

to

the

calculation of Quattlebaum’s Guidelines range are barred from
this court’s consideration under the mandate rule; Quattlebaum
either

previously

raised

his

objections

at

his

original

sentencing and on his first appeal, or could have raised them
but did not.
Mach.

Co.,

proceeding

See Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. Clark
510 F.3d

is

not

474,

the

481

(4th

occasion

for

Cir.

2007)

raising

(“[A]

new

remand

arguments

or

legal theories.”); United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th
Cir.

1993)

(stating

that

the

mandate

rule

“forecloses

relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the
appellate court[,]” as well as “issues decided by the district
court but foregone on appeal”).
Moreover,
posits

that

when

“the
a

doctrine

court

decides

[of
upon

the

law

of

the

a

rule

of

case]

law,

that

decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent
stages in the same case.”

United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d

655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted)).

The law of the case must be applied:

in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the
trial court or on a later appeal . . . unless: (1) a
subsequent
trial
produces
substantially
different
evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a
contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or
4

Case: 08-4777

Document: 78

Date Filed: 04/12/2011

Page: 5

(3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would
work manifest injustice.
Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see Doe v.
Chao, 511 F.3d 461, 464-66 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing mandate
rule and its exceptions).
This court’s mandate in Davis I directed the district
court to resentence Quattlebaum under a non-mandatory Guidelines
regime,

taking

into

consideration

the

2007

crack

cocaine

Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, if applicable.
Davis, 270 F. App’x at 248, 256 & n.16.

See

Because Quattlebaum

raises no claims that fall within any of the exceptions to the
law of the case doctrine, and since the 2007 Amendments had no
effect on his Guidelines range, Quattlebaum’s challenge to his
Guidelines range calculation is foreclosed by the mandate rule. *
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 300-month
variant

sentence

imposed

on

remand.

We

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
*

Although Quattlebaum also asserts that defense counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s
Guidelines range calculation on remand, given the lack of merit
of such an objection, the record does not conclusively establish
ineffective assistance.
See United States v. Richardson, 195
F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).

5