US v. Trenton Raley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00293-MOC-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999193739].. [13-4082]

Appeal: 13-4082

Doc: 44

Filed: 09/16/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4082

Doc: 44

Filed: 09/16/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Jaquan

pled

PER CURIAM:
Trenton
written

plea

agreement,

Raley
to

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

Appeal: 13-4082

Doc: 44

Filed: 09/16/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

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

Appeal: 13-4082

Doc: 44

Filed: 09/16/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

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