US v. Robert Sykes, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00458-MJG-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999990545]. [16-4206]
Appeal: 16-4206
Doc: 35
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4206
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT WILLIAM SYKES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cr-00458-MJG-1)
Submitted:
December 15, 2016
Decided:
December 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, David Metcalf,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4206
Doc: 35
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Robert William Sykes, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of
interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a)
(2012)
(Hobbs
Act).
The
district
court
Sykes to 72 months of imprisonment and he now appeals.
sentenced
Finding
no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Sykes first argues that the district court erred
in declining to reduce his offense level for the second count by
three
levels
§ 2X1.1(b)(1)
calculations
under
U.S.
(2016).
under
In
the
Sentencing
reviewing
Guidelines,
“we
Guidelines
the
Manual
district
court’s
review
the
district
court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error.”
Cir.
2010)
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Section
2X1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines provides:
If an attempt, decrease by [three] levels, unless the
defendant
completed all
the
acts
the
defendant
believed necessary for successful completion of the
substantive offense or the circumstances demonstrate
that the defendant was about to complete all such acts
but for apprehension or interruption by some similar
event beyond the defendant’s control.
“The commentary to § 2X1.1 explicitly states that the reduction
is intended for cases in which the defendant is arrested well
before
he
offense.”
has
completed
the
acts
necessary
to
commit
the
United States v. Shakur, 7 F. App’x 289, 290 (4th
Cir. 2001) (No. 00-4755).
2
Appeal: 16-4206
Doc: 35
Section
Filed: 12/20/2016
1951(a)
Pg: 3 of 4
prohibits
obstructing,
delaying,
or
affecting, in any way, the movement of any article or commodity
in commerce by robbery or extortion, attempt or conspiracy to
commit robbery or extortion, or threats of physical violence.
18
U.S.C.
§ 1951(a).
“A
Hobbs
Act
crime,
then,
has
two
elements: (1) robbery or extortion, and (2) interference with
commerce.”
2014)
United States v. Taylor, 754 F.3d 217, 222 (4th Cir.
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
“The
Hobbs
Act
defines robbery as the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal
property from the person by means of actual or threatened force,
or violence, or fear of injury, to his person or property at the
time of the taking or obtaining.”
United States v. Strayhorn,
743 F.3d 917, 922 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted).
and
the
district
relevant
court
We have thoroughly reviewed the record
legal
did
not
authorities
err
in
and
calculating
conclude
the
that
offense
the
level
under the Guidelines.
Sykes
also
argues
that
the
court
erred
in
denying
his
motion for a downward departure under USSG § 4A1.3(b) because
his criminal history category overrepresented the seriousness of
his criminal history.
sentencing
court’s
mistakenly
believed
“We are unable, however, to review a
decision
that
it
not
to
lacked
depart
the
unless
authority
the
to
do
court
so.”
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
3
Appeal: 16-4206
Doc: 35
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
Here, it is clear that the district court did not misapprehend
its
authority
“cannot
to
contest
downward.”
grant
on
such
appeal
a
departure.
the
court’s
Therefore,
failure
to
Sykes
depart
Id. at 306.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?