US v. Lokheim Campbell


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00487-BHH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999946475].. [16-4218]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4218 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4218 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LOKHEIM JERALLE CAMPBELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00487-BHH-1) Submitted: September 22, 2016 Decided: October 13, 2016 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4218 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Lokheim Jeralle Campbell pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. one issue. He now appeals, raising We affirm. I The record prescription reflects drugs to that Cyril Campbell Lowery. agreed While the to sell men were negotiating the sale of the drugs, Campbell pulled out a handgun to rob Lowery. When Lowery began to flee, Campbell fired at Lowery several times, striking him once in each foot. Five shell casings were recovered from the scene. Lowery’s probation officer applied the cross-reference for attempted first degree murder and assigned base offense level 33. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A2.1(a)(1) (2015). Two levels were added because the victim, serious bodily injury, USSG § 2A2.1(b)(1)(B). Lowery, sustained Three levels were subtracted based on acceptance of responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1. Campbell’s total offense level was 32, his criminal history category was III, and his Guidelines range was 151-188 months. He was statutorily subject to a maximum term of ten years in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2012). Guidelines range was 120 months. Accordingly, his See USSG § 5G1.1(a). 2 Appeal: 16-4218 Doc: 26 At Filed: 10/13/2016 sentencing, Campbell Pg: 3 of 4 objected to application of the cross-reference, arguing that he intended to rob but not to kill Lowery. The district court overruled the objection. II Campbell contends that the district court erred when it applied the cross-reference for attempted first degree murder. When evaluating Guidelines calculations, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014). The Guidelines provide for a base offense level of 33 “if the object of the offense would have constituted first degree murder,” as defined in § 2A2.1(a)(1) & cmt. n.1. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (2012). USSG Section 1111, in turn, defines first degree murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought” — that is, “[e]very murder perpetrated by . . . willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any . . . robbery.” commits first degree 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). murder if the Thus, a defendant killing was either premeditated or committed during the course of a felony, such as robbery. See United States v. Morales-Machuca, 546 F.3d 13, 22 (“18 U.S.C. § 1111 was intended to adopt the felony murder rule, and for a stated felony the malice element is satisfied by the 3 Appeal: 16-4218 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/13/2016 Pg: 4 of 4 intent to commit the unlawful felony” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We conclude that the district court properly applied the cross-reference. at him five While attempting to rob Lowery, Campbell shot times, hitting him twice. Campbell could have killed Lowery during the course of the robbery; had Lowery died, Campbell would have been guilty of felony murder. 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 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?