US v. Perry Haywood, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00212-RWT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000044116]. Mailed to: Perry Haywood, Jr. #62256-037; F.C.I. Berlin P.O. Box 9000 Berlin, NH 03570. [16-4383]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4383 Doc: 35 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4383 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PERRY J. HAYWOOD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cr-00212-RWT-1) Submitted: January 30, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy S. Forster, FORSTER, JOHNSON & LECOMPTE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Ray Daniel McKenzie, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4383 Doc: 35 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Perry J. Haywood, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of access device-making equipment with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4) (2012) (Count 2), and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sentenced § 1028A Haywood imprisonment, (2012) to consisting (Count an 4). The aggregate of 30 term months consecutive 24-month term on Count 4. on district of 54 Count court months’ 2 and a In this appeal, which is taken pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel avers that there are no nonfrivolous issues but asks us to review the district court’s loss determination and resulting four-level increase to Haywood’s base offense level, and questions whether the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by Guidelines utilizing the 2015 Manual. Haywood edition has filed of the U.S. a pro se Sentencing supplemental brief in which he raises essentially the same issues. * Government has declined to file a response. The For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment. * To the extent Haywood’s pro se supplemental brief also challenges the computation of his sentence by the Bureau of Prisons, this claim may be pursued in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), which is properly commenced in the federal district court for the district in which Haywood is confined. See United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989). 2 Appeal: 16-4383 Doc: 35 This Filed: 03/17/2017 court reviews a Pg: 3 of 5 sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under a deferential States, abuse-of-discretion 552 U.S. consideration 38, of 41 both (2007). the court reasonableness, properly range, gave calculated the parties Gall This and Id. at 51. we consider defendant’s an opportunity United requires substantive In determining whether the v. review procedural reasonableness of the sentence. procedural standard.” the advisory to district Guidelines argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to explain sufficiently the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. The lone procedural error claimed by Haywood pertains to the district amount. court’s determination of the applicable We review such a determination for clear error. loss United States v. Jones, 716 F.3d 851, 859-60 (4th Cir. 2013). When calculating the Guidelines range applicable to a fraud offense, the Government is required to establish the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495, 503 (4th Cir. 2003). Special rules govern determinations of loss in cases like this, which involve stolen or counterfeit credit cards and access devices. cmt. n.3(F)(i). USSG § 2B1.1 In such cases, “loss includes any unauthorized 3 Appeal: 16-4383 Doc: 35 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 4 of 5 charges made with the counterfeit . . . or unauthorized access device and shall be not less than $500 per access device.” The term part, “access to device” is “any card, include defined by plate, statute, code, in Id. relevant account number, electronic serial number, . . . or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money.” 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1) (2012). Haywood, in his pro se supplemental brief, relies on the stipulated statement of facts proffered in conjunction with his plea agreement to suggest that there were only 28 account numbers involved in this offense, and thus that the intended loss amount was not more than $14,000. However, as counsel acknowledges in the Anders brief, the factual stipulation also recounted “access 48 plastic device,” as cards, well as each of several which qualifies skimming as devices. an Even considering only the 48 cards -- as the district court did -based on the $500-per-device minimum loss recommendation in USSG § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(i), this amounted to $24,000 in loss, which well supports application of the 4-level enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C). district We court’s loss thus discern calculation no clear and error application in the of the resulting four-level enhancement. Counsel’s second issue in the Anders brief asks whether the district court ran afoul of the 4 Ex Post Facto Clause by Appeal: 16-4383 Doc: 35 utilizing Filed: 03/17/2017 the 2015 edition Pg: 5 of 5 of the determining Haywood’s sentence. Sentencing Guidelines in The record reveals that defense counsel sought application of this edition of the Guidelines because it was favorable to Haywood as it increased the minimum dollar amount necessary USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C). for the four-level enhancement under The court acceded to counsel’s request. Counsel does not identify, nor do we discern, any basis for the ex post facto claim pressed here. We thus reject this issue as meritless. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious ground for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Haywood, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Haywood requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Haywood. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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?