US v. Joseph Mann
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00341-TSE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999714969].. [15-4148]
Appeal: 15-4148
Doc: 33
Filed: 12/09/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4148
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH EMMANUEL MANN, a/k/a Musa Kofi, a/k/a Mike Mann,
a/k/a Big Mike, a/k/a Cass Musa, a/k/a Knot Musa, a/k/a
Kofi Musa, a/k/a Gilbert S. Batten, a/k/a Joseph Emmanual
Mann,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00341-TSE-1)
Submitted:
November 30, 2015
Decided:
December 9, 2015
Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Kevin R. Brehm, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Carina A. Cuellar, Christopher Catizone,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4148
Doc: 33
Filed: 12/09/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Emmanuel Mann appeals the 108-month sentence imposed
at
his
resentencing
for
conspiracy
to
distribute
oxycodone.
Mann contends that the district court erred in determining the
quantity of drugs attributable to him.
We affirm.
I
At
Mann’s
original
sentencing,
the
district
court
found
that Mann was responsible for an amount of oxycodone with a
marijuana equivalency of at least 3,000 kilograms but less than
10,000 kilograms, resulting in a base offense level of 34.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(3) (2011).
See
Mann
was in criminal history category I, and his Guidelines range was
151-188 months.
months’
imprisonment,
disparity
issues.
The district court imposed a sentence of 108
among
varying
downward
co-conspirators
and
to
because
avoid
of
sentencing
Mann’s
health
On appeal, Mann’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
We affirmed.
United
States v. Mann, 494 F. App’x 389 (4th Cir. Oct. 3, 2012) (No.
12-4103).
Mann then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
other
issues,
sentencing
for
he
contended
failing
to
that
object
counsel
to
the
was
Among
ineffective
calculation
of
at
drug
quantity on the basis of United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431
2
Appeal: 15-4148
Doc: 33
Filed: 12/09/2015
(4th Cir. 2011).
Pg: 3 of 5
The district court granted the motion with
respect to this issue and ordered resentencing.
In its memorandum on resentencing, the government asserted
that the trial testimony of two witnesses, Christopher Martino
and James Post, established that Mann was responsible for 11,266
80-milligram
oxycodone
6,038.576 kilograms.
level
34
offense
under
pills,
a
marijuana
equivalency
of
This amount placed Mann in base offense
the
2011
32
under
level
for
version
of
the
the
2014
Guidelines
version.
§§ 2D1.1(c)(3) (2011), 2D1.1(c)(4) (2014).
and
See
base
USSG
In his memorandum,
Mann claimed he was responsible for 6,946 pills but conceded
that, even using this lower number, the marijuana equivalency
remained
the
same
10,000 kilograms.
offense
level
—
at
least
3,000
kilograms
but
less
than
He agreed with the Government that his base
would
be
34
under
the
2011
version
of
the
Guidelines and 32 under the 2014 version.
At the resentencing hearing, the Government stated that,
although
the
parties
disagreed
about
the
exact
number
of
oxycodone pills Mann had distributed, they agreed that he had
distributed a quantity of oxycodone with a marijuana equivalency
of
at
least
3,000
kilograms
but
less
than
10,000
kilograms.
Mann did not object to this statement, nor did he seek a ruling
on the precise number of pills for which he was responsible.
3
Appeal: 15-4148
Doc: 33
Filed: 12/09/2015
Pg: 4 of 5
The district court determined that Mann was accountable for
oxycodone
with
a
marijuana
equivalency
of
6,038
kilograms,
resulting in base offense level 32 under the 2014 Guidelines.
The court stated that its finding regarding drug quantity was
based on the trial testimony of Martino and Post concerning the
amount
of
oxycodone
Mann
actually
distributed
to
them.
The
court departed below the Guidelines range of 121-151 months and
again sentenced Mann to 108 months in prison.
II
Mann claims that the district court erred in calculating
the
quantity
of
drugs
for
which
he
was
responsible.
Specifically, he contends for the first time on appeal that he
distributed
only
5,293
oxycodone
pills,
for
a
marijuana
equivalency that results in a base offense level of 30 under the
2014
Guidelines.
We
conclude
that,
by
conceding
in
his
resentencing memorandum and at the resentencing hearing that he
was
responsible
for
an
amount
of
oxycodone
with
a
marijuana
equivalency of at least 3,000 kilograms but less than 10,000
kilograms, Mann invited any error and waived his right to raise
this claim on appeal.
See United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d
756, 772 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74,
75 (4th Cir. 1994).
Even if the issue is not waived, however, we conclude that
the district court did not commit any error, much less plain
4
Appeal: 15-4148
Doc: 33
Filed: 12/09/2015
Pg: 5 of 5
error, in its determination of drug quantity.
First, the court
used the proper methodology sanctioned in Bell to determine drug
quantity.
See Bell, 667 F.3d at 443 (when drug in question was
obtained by conspirator through a prescription, court may base
determination
of
distributed”).
drug
quantity
on
amount
of
drugs
“actually
Second, in concluding that Mann distributed at
least 11,000 oxycodone pills, the court found the testimony of
Martino, who testified that Mann distributed 9,600 pills to him
directly or indirectly, and Post, who testified that he bought
$50,000 worth of oxycodone pills from Mann at $30 per pill, to
be credible.
deference.
We accord this credibility determination great
See United States v. Thompson, 554 F.3d 450, 452
(4th Cir. 2009).
III
We
therefore
affirm.
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
5
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?