US v. Charlie Bryant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00072-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999625209]. [14-4446]

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4446

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLIE WAYNE BRYANT,
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−00072−MOC–1)

Argued:

May 12, 2015

Decided:

July 22, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Agee joined.

ARGUED: Cindy Helene Popkin-Bradley, CINDY H. POPKIN-BRADLEY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. William
Michael Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Anne M. Tompkins, United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 11

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 11

WYNN, Circuit Judge:
This is the second time we are asked to review the sentence
of

Defendant

Charlie

Wayne

Bryant

after

he

pled

guilty

to

assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)
and (b).
court’s

The first appeal required us to evaluate the district
application

of

United

States

Sentencing

(“U.S.S.G.”) § 2A2.2 for aggravated assault.
Bryant, 540 Fed. App’x 241 (4th Cir. 2014).

Guidelines

United States v.

Although the district

court heard facts that would have supported the application of
U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2, the court made conflicting statements suggesting
it may have intended to instead apply U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4, the
guideline for obstructing or impeding a federal officer.

We

therefore vacated the sentence and remanded so that the district
court could make necessary factual findings and clarify its intent.
On remand, the district court conducted another sentencing hearing
and once again imposed a sentence using U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2.
With this appeal, Defendant argues that the district court
improperly applied U.S.S.G § 2A2.2 and asks us to order the
district court to instead apply U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4, which would
significantly reduce his guidelines range.

This we cannot do

because the district court made factual findings that are supported
by the record and justify a sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2.
Accordingly, we must affirm.

3

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 4 of 11

I.
This appeal arises from an altercation between Defendant and
a security officer at the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
office in Gastonia, North Carolina.

Defendant was a homeless

veteran suffering from chronic mental illness.

In February 2011,

he went to the SSA office to inquire “about some checks that [his]
deceased wife tore up in 2005,” but the claims representative could
not help him.

J.A. 157.

Defendant then became belligerent, and

his voice got “real, real loud.”
The
Defendant

on-duty
and

security

urged

him

J.A. 104.

officer,
to

lower

Edward
his

Seigle,

voice

and

approached
stop

using

profanity, but Seigle’s comments further agitated Defendant.

An

altercation

it

ensued,

and

although

accounts

vary

as

to

how

started, it is clear that Defendant and Seigle ended up on the
ground in the bathroom of the SSA office after Defendant “swung
at” Seigle.

J.A. 86.

Defendant thrashed wildly, but Seigle

eventually subdued Defendant until police arrived.
Following his arrest, Defendant was charged with, and pled
guilty to, assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a)(1) and (b).

Defendant’s sentencing hearing focused

primarily on the mechanics of the altercation, particularly on
whether Defendant attempted to grab Seigle’s firearm.

During the

hearing,

Defendant,

the

district

court

heard

4

testimony

from

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 5 of 11

Seigle, other SSA employees who witnessed the incident, and the
arresting officer.
Seigle testified that Defendant “started up at the bottom of
my holster, he got to the top of . . . my gun in my holster . . .
.

[H]e was after my weapon.”

J.A. 130.

Defendant confirmed that

he “put [his] hand on [Siegle’s] holster.”

J.A. 158.

However, he

denied that he was trying to take Seigle’s firearm and instead
asserted that he touched the holster merely to “scare” Seigle so
that Seigle would “get off of me.”

J.A. 158.

But the two SSA

employees who witnessed the altercation confirmed Seigle’s version
of events.

They testified that Defendant “grabbed on to Officer

Seigle’s holster” and was “reaching for [Seigle’s] sidearm.”
107, 118.

J.A.

The district court also heard from the arresting

officer, who testified that after transporting Defendant to jail
and reading him his Miranda rights, Defendant stated that he “was
trying to grab [Seigle’s] Glock,” and that his “intentions were to
kill him because he was beating me.”
At

the

calculated

conclusion

Defendant’s

of

the

guidelines

J.A. 147.

hearing,
range

the
using

district
the

court

aggravated

assault guideline under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 and imposed a withinguidelines sentence of 130 months.
Defendant

appealed

to

this

Court,

challenging

both

the

validity of his guilty plea and the calculation of his guidelines
range.

Bryant, 540 Fed. App’x at 243.
5

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 6 of 11

After affirming the denial of Defendant’s motion to withdraw
his guilty plea, we vacated his sentence and remanded to the
district court to clarify its factual findings and to resentence
Defendant.
to

resolve

Id. at 251.
an

Specifically, we asked the district court

ambiguity

it

created

when

it

made

conflicting

statements during Defendant’s sentencing hearing. On the one hand,
the district court accepted “all of the findings in the Presentence
Report.”

J.A. 167.

This included a recommendation to apply

U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2, the guideline for aggravated assault, which
requires that the assault involved a dangerous weapon.

On the

other hand, the district court stated that the offense took place
“with no weapon involved by the defendant.”

J.A. 168.

These

contradictions made the district court’s intent unclear because
“[i]f no dangerous weapon was involved, U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 cannot
apply.”

Bryant, 540 Fed. App’x at 250.

In addition, an error in the presentence report clouded the
district court’s intent.

The presentence report described the

charged offense as an assault by use of a deadly weapon when the
actual crime charged and pled to was assault inflicting bodily
injury.
We therefore vacated and remanded so the district court could
resolve these discrepancies, clarify its intent, and resentence
Defendant.

Importantly, though, we did not hold that the district

court could not apply the aggravated assault guideline:
6

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 7 of 11

To the contrary, the district court heard facts that
might supports its application of U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 via
the Relevant Conduct Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. For
example, Seigle [and other SSA employees] all testified
that Defendant was grabbing for Seigle’s gun. Defendant
himself admitted that he was attempting to scare Seigle
by touching his holster.
And [the arresting officer]
testified that Defendant told him that he was attempting
to grab Seigle’s “glock” and that if he had been
successful, he would have killed Seigle.
Id. at 250–51.

Nevertheless, we chose not to speculate as to what

the district court might have intended.
On remand, the district court conducted another sentencing
hearing.

During the hearing, the district court acknowledged that

“[t]he record may not be as clear as it should have been,” but
that it would “correct[] the record today.”

J.A. 235.

To that

end, the district court noted that it “was not saying there was no
gun involved in the case at the time.”

J.A. 235.

Rather, the

district court meant that “[t]he defendant didn’t bring the deadly
weapon there.”

J.A. 230.

The district court went on to state the

guideline it was applying and why it was applying it:
[A]ggravated assault . . . is defined . . . as a
felonious assault that involved a dangerous weapon with
the intent to cause bodily injury . . . .
The Court finds that the threatened use of it, that is,
in the middle of a fight reaching for the officer’s
firearm, as all of the witnesses, including defendant,
said the defendant did. The defendant has changed his
story, but the Court is discounting that and finds from
the preponderance of the evidence that he was going for
the gun. That because of that this becomes an aggravated
assault and, therefore, that’s why I’m finding 2A2.2 is
correct.

7

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

J.A. 237–38.

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 8 of 11

The district court then calculated the guidelines

range and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 115 months. This
appeal followed.

II.
Defendant maintains on this second appeal that the district
court again erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 instead of U.S.S.G.
§ 2A2.4.

Defendant argues that U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 cannot apply

because there is no factual basis to support a finding that the
assault “involved” a dangerous weapon.

We disagree.

When reviewing a district court’s sentencing determination,
we must “ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range . . . .”
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall v. United States,

We assess the district court’s guidelines

calculation by reviewing its legal conclusions de novo and its
factual findings for clear error.
F.3d 229, 241 (4th Cir. 2012).

United States v. Lawing, 703

Clear error occurs only when we

are left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.”

United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 337 (4th

Cir. 2008).
Here, Defendant pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)
and (b), a statute making it a crime to assault, resist, or impede
a government officer or employee. The sentencing guidelines direct
8

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 9 of 11

that a defendant’s sentence for violating Section 111 must be
calculated either under the guideline for “Obstructing or Impeding
Officers,”

U.S.S.G.

§

2A2.4,

or

under

“Aggravated Assault,” U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2.

the

guideline

for

See U.S.S.G. App. A.

The

district court here chose the guideline for “Aggravated Assault,”
U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2.
The central question before us is whether Defendant’s offense
“involved” a firearm.

U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2.

“Aggravated assault” is

defined, in relevant part, as “a felonious assault that involved
. . . a dangerous weapon with intent to cause bodily injury (i.e.,
not merely to frighten) with that weapon.”
n.1 (emphasis added).

U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 app.

Thus, “involve” is the operative threshold

needed to trigger Section 2A2.2 here.
The term “involve” is, on its face, broad and not limited to,
for example, “use,” “possess,” or “control.”

See United States v.

Cheeseman, 600 F.3d 270, 278–81 (3d Cir. 2010) (interpreting the
phrase “involved in” as used in a firearm statute and concluding
“involve” is a “broad term”). While not defined in the guidelines,
the dictionary defines “involve” as “[t]o have as a necessary
feature or consequence; entail . . . [t]o relate to or affect.”
American Heritage Dictionary 923 (5th ed. 2011).

See also, e.g.,

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1191 (2002) (defining
“involve” as “engage,” “entail,” “imply,” and “implicate”).

And

“[t]his [C]ourt has long consulted dictionaries of common usage in
9

Appeal: 14-4446

Doc: 37

order

to

language.”

Filed: 07/22/2015

establish

the

plain

Pg: 10 of 11

meaning

of

disputed

statutory

United States v. Fugit, 703 F.3d 248, 254 (4th Cir.

2012).
We do not purport to establish some grand test for when an
assault “involves” a firearm.

But when we turn to the facts of

this case, it is clear that Defendant’s conduct, as found by the
district court, satisfies the involve threshold.
During the resentencing hearing, the district court explained
that when it stated during the first sentencing hearing that the
offense took place “with no weapon involved by the defendant,”
J.A. 168, it was merely commenting that Defendant did not bring
the weapon to the SSA office himself.
Moreover, the district court relied upon the very facts that
we stated could support application of U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2.
Bryant, 540 Fed. App’x at 250–51.
SSA

employees

officer’s

testified

firearm”

and

that

was

Namely, Seigle and two other

Defendant

“going

See

for

“reach[ed]

the

gun.”

for
J.A.

the
237.

Defendant also admitted that he touched Seigle’s holster.

And the

arresting

he

officer

testified

that

Defendant

stated

was

attempting to grab Seigle’s “glock” and intended to use it to kill
Seigle.
The district court then discredited Defendant’s version of
the events in which he claimed, among other things, that he was
not the aggressor and did not touch or intend to take Seigle’s
10

Appeal: 14-4446

gun.

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 11 of 11

These findings together led to the conclusion that Defendant

“threatened [the] use” of Seigle’s firearm and that the assault
involved a dangerous weapon.

J.A. 237.

Accordingly, the district

court found “from the preponderance of the evidence that . . .
this becomes an aggravated assault and, therefore, that’s why . .
. 2A2.2 is correct.”
Given

the

J.A. 237–38.

conflicting

testimony,

the

district

court

was

entitled to discredit Defendant’s version of the incident and find
that he was attempting to grab Seigle’s firearm.

And absent clear

error, which is not present here, we are not at liberty to disturb
such supported factual findings.

Harvey, 532 F.3d at 337 (“We .

. . review the factual findings of the district court . . . for
clear error.” (citation omitted)).
district court’s determination.

Instead, we must uphold the

See United States v. Chandia, 675

F.3d 329, 337 (4th Cir. 2012).

III.

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district
court properly applied the aggravated assault guideline.

We

therefore
AFFIRM.

11