RECENT FEDERAL TRIAL COURT/ APPELLATE COURT RESULTS
U.S. v. N.M.– charged in federal court with counterfeiting U.S. currency. Our federal defense attorney in Florence, SC gets the government to agree to Pretrial Diversion. This will all the defendant to have a clean record after completing the course. Only a very few cases nationwide are admitted into the diversion program from the United States Attorney office.
U.S. v A.G.– defendant charge with trafficking meth. Our federal defense lawyer gets the government to agree to a plea for misprison of a felony. This was a much lower charge. The defendant is given time served. The defendant was sentenced in federal court in Florence, SC.
U.S. v. J.M.– defendant charged Florence Federal court with purchasing a firearm for a convicted felony. Several weapons were purchased and all codefendants were sentenced to lfederal prison. Our client receives 3 months house arrest, followed by probation.
U.S. v. T.R.– defendant charged with trafficking in cocaine. Bottom of guideline range is 48 months. Defendant has psychological issues and our Criminal Defense Lawyer in Myrtle Beach gets the federal judge to vary below the guideline range. Defendant sentenced to 3 months home confinement without electronic monitoring.
U.S. v. K.A.– defendant indicted for trafficking in cocaine and firearms. Bottom of guideline range is 220 months. Our Myrtle Beach Criminal Defense Lawyer gets the prosecutor to agree to a 11(c)(1)(c) plea agreement giving the defendant a sentence of 60 months.
U.S. v. T.T.- defendant charged in several count indictment alleging bank fraud (mortgage fraud) in the Myrtle Beach area. Defendant had faced several years in prison. However, there was extensive cooperation and the defendant played a minor role in the conspiracy. Defendant receives a sentence of thirty days followed by probation. Several co-defendants sentenced to years in prison. Our federal white collar defense attorney was critical to this low sentence.
U.S. v. R.L.– defendant goes to trial in Charleston. After jury selection and prior to testimony, government agrees to let defendant plead to an amount of cocaine that will allow the defendant to receive time served on federal conspiracy indictment. Defendant given time served for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in Charleston, South Carolina. Our federal defense lawyer in Charleston was able to get the government to agree as to the defendant’s role in this conspiracy.
U.S. v. P.H.– defendant plead guilty to one count of a five count indictment related to harboring illegal aliens, transporting illegal aliens, and employing illegal aliens. Defendant had faced several years in prison. Our Charleston criminal lawyer gets defendant three years of probation.
U.S. v. J.R.– defendant was a career offender and indicted for drug trafficking. Defendant had the two prior predict offenses necessary for the increased sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. His guideline range under his presentence report called for a sentence of over 260 months at the bottom and under 327 at the top. Our federal defense lawyer was able to convince the court that the career offender guideline should not apply and the defendant was sentenced to 120 months. This sentence was 140 months below the bottom of the defendant’s guideline range.
U.S. v. E.H.– Defendant indicted for possession with the intent to distribute over 5 kilograms of Ectasy (MDMA). Our Charleston federal defense lawyer argues for the bottom of the guidelines and to allow the defendant serve his prison term in his home country. The court sentences the defendant to the bottom of the guidelines and agrees to allow the defendant to acquire a treaty transfer to his home country.
U.S. v. P.W.– defendant charged with drug conspiracy over several years and several firearms involved. Defendant’s sentencing guideline range was 384-465 months in prison. AT sentencing our federal defense lawyer conveniences the judge to give defendant 210 months in prison. The defendant will receive another reduction in the coming months based on cooperation.
U.S. v. T.F.– defendant charged with wire fraud. Case was based on email and telephone conversations with an alleged Ponzi scheme to be completed by several defendants. No actual victim because the FBI used an informant to arrange the entire transaction. This case was very defend-able and there was clearly an entrapment issue present. Client receives probation help of our federal defense lawyer.
U.S. v. J.S.– bank fraud indictment . Our federal criminal defense lawyer is able to get a term of imprisonment on the presentence investigation report reduced to house arrest followed by a term of supervision at the sentencing. The remaining defendants were sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the lead defendant receiving a sentence of more than 40 months. Our client was also give the lowest amount of restitution. This was possible because of the mitigation package presented to the sentencing judge.
U.S. v. Gs– clients under investigation for mortgage fraud, bank fraud and kick backs. Our federal defense lawyer gets government to agree not to indict and clients are cleared based on current status of case.
U.S. v. J.O.– defendant charged with exporting firearms to Brazil. Defendant’s guideline range was 57-71 months prior to sentencing. The court was very concerned with the number of guns being smuggled to Brazil and the semi-automatic pistols. Our Charleston defense attorney was able to convince the court that the defendant did not intend to disrupt the national security of the United States by shipping these guns, but rather was forwarding a collection of guns to his family. The court agreed with our federal defense lawyer’s analysis and lowered the guideline range. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 21 months. The defendant had already served 11 months and will be scheduled for release in the next few months.
US v. D.S.- client sentenced to 110 months for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. The sentence was based on an sentencing enhancement filed by the United States Attorney. The defendant was considered a Career Offender based on his criminal history. In particular, the defendant had been convicted of failure to stop for a blue light in South Carolina. Our federal defense lawyer argued that the Fourth Circuit’s analysis was incorrect during the sentencing hearing. The District Court ruled against this argument and the defendant was given the high sentence. Our federal appellate attorney was able to win the appeal as listed below. On re-sentencing the defendant was give a sentence of time served and was release to his family.
U.S. v. T.E.- Defendant pleads guilty to conspiracy count with a stipulated sentence of five (5) years against the advice of our federal defense attorney. Presentence report is returned and defendant’s guideline range is capped at 18 months. At sentencing our federal attorney gets the defendant a sentence of time served.
U.S. v. J.R.- defendant sentenced to 15 months in prison after being found guilty of trafficking in marijuana. Defendant has minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years. Our federal defense attorney argues to federal judge to allow for a lower sentence based on the United States sentencing guideline factors. Defendant also allowed to self report.
U.S. v. J.M.- defendant convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine. Defendant qualifies as career offender under the federal guidelines and under the federal 851 enhancement. Defendant has guideline range of 262-327 months in prison. Our federal defense attorney gets defendant a sentence of 120 months. This was more than 10 years below his guideline range. This case was in federal court in South Carolina.
State of South Carolina v. S.H.- defendant charged with assault and battery with intent to kill. Our criminal defense lawyer gets the case lowered to misdemeanor and defendant gets probation.
State of South Carolina v. J.C.- defendant charged with bringing an illegal narcotic into a jail facility. Defendant on probation, our Myrtle Beach Attorney is able to get the prosecutor to agree to continue the probation. Defendant faced up to 8 years in State prison.
State of South Carolina v. M.K. – defendant charged with possession with intent to distribute. Our Myrtle Beach attorney able to get the charges dismissed. The case lasted less than 6 months and the client was shocked with the result.
U.S. v. J.F.- client indicted for meth lab along with over a dozen co-defendants. Our federal defense attorney prepared the case for trial and the government agreed to not proceed with specific counts of the indictment. Our defense attorney negotiated with the government to cap the defendant’s prison exposure to 10 years at the time of the defendants plea agreement. At sentencing the defendant was given under 7 years.
U.S. v. J.M.- client charged in multi-defendant drug conspiracy in Columbia, South Carolina. Client had prior South Carolina defense attorney and was in the middle of the case. Our federal defense attorney entered the case 20 days prior to trial. There were over 13 co-defendants at the time with several stating in open court that they were going to plead guilty. Client unsure of how to handle case. Our defense attorney was able to get the United States Attorney to agree not to indict the defendant for murder. However, the prosecutor did place a murder cross reference in the plea agreement. Client was facing life in prison at the time of the plea. Client was eventually sentenced to 188 months. After completion of the drug program and serving 85% of the sentence, the defendant will be released within 130 months. Federal prison sentence reduced from Life to 130 months. Defendant will also have the ability for a Rule 35 reduction in his sentence.
U.S. v. T.C.- defendant charged with federal firearms violation. Defendant sold an assault rifle to an A.T.F. agent. (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). Defendant was facing 60 months prison. Our criminal defense attorney was able to get the defendant a sentence of 30 months. Defendant will be release within 12 months of sentencing.
U.S. v. L.W.- client charged with several federal violations. Client had been represented by several attorneys over a year long incarceration. Prior to sentencing our criminal defense attorney in Myrtle Beach was assigned to the case. The defendant was facing 30 years in prison. The defense attorney was able to convince the government that the defendant was not a violent individual and at sentencing the defendant received a 14 year sentence.
U.S. v. S.B.- client was alleged to be a prior captain in the Bloods gang. Client was facing life in prison and had been represented by several criminal defense attorneys over a year. Our South Carolina defense attorney was able to come into the case and get the client a sentence of 14 years. The client had been to federal prison on more than two other occasions and was career offender in the federal system.
U.S. v. T.O.- client charged with violation of 21 U.S.C. 841. The drug was cocaine in an amount above 1.5 kilograms. The defendant was faced with numerous federal crimes related to the cocaine and his presence in the United States. After filing an extensive sentencing memorandum and arguing for a low sentence, the defendant was granted the Safety Value and a reduced sentence at the bottom of his guidelines. The defendant originally was exposed to a 5 year mandatory minimum. The defendant will be released with 34 months.
U.S. v. S.S.- represented client on a Rule 35 in Florence Federal Court. Had judge agree to cut client’s remaining federal sentence in 1/2 based on his prior cooperation with the United States. Client was charged with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base (crack) of 50 grams or more.
U.S. v. R.W.- Federal drug trafficking case involving 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack), 500 grams or more of cocaine and use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. Defendant was given the bottom of the sentencing guidelines after Russell Mace presented testimony regarding the use of the firearm and testimony related to the defendant’s prior drug problems.
U.S. v. O.B.- this was a possession of child pornography, distribution of child pornography, and interstate travel with the intent to commit a illegal sexual act. The defendant was indicted in Miami, Florida and simultaneously indicted in Detroit, Michigan. These indictments carried a very substantial prison sentence. Our federal criminal defense attorney, Russell Mace was able to get the government to for go indicting the defendant on a mandatory 10 year prison term. The defendant was sentenced in Detroit on both indictments and received a bottom of the guidelines sentence.
U.S. v. K.S.- this was a marriage fraud indictment. The defendant and his wife were indicted with over 8 other defendants for defrauding the United States government via immigration filings. The defendant was sentenced as an organizer and received a guidelines sentence. Mr. Mace was able to convince the judge to allow the defendant to remain free for an indefinite time period to care for his children.
State of Florida v. T.T.- Mr. Mace represented a defendant that had served 7 years of prison time on a 15 year sentence. Mr. Mace was able to get the State of Florida to release the defendant with credit time served. The defendant had been charged with armed robbery.
U.S. v. W.R.- marijuana trafficking case our to California. The defendant was charged with export over 1000 pounds of marijuana to cities across the United States and possibly to Europe. Defendant had 8 hour sentencing hearing in Miami, Florida. The defendant had never been to Miami, but his activities were alleged to have impacted the South District of Florida.
U.S. v. B.L. — wire fraud indictment accusing the defendant in Texas for telephone calls and fax transmissions to South Carolina. Basic pyramid financial scheme with possible exposure of 10 years prison. Defendant given Probation. This was federal indictment in Greenville, South Carolina.
U.S. v. A.M. — RICO case involving theft from several malls. Indictment dismissed. This was a federal indictment in Miami, Florida.
U.S. v. J.G. — violation of credit access device. Exposure limited to involvement in case and defendant given 6 months with credit for 3 months in residential facility. The was a federal indictment in Miami, Florida.
U.S. v. T.O.- federal drug conspiracy indictment. Cocaine being imported through Mexico. Client qualifies for safety valve and 3 level downward for acceptance of responsibility.
U.S. v. J.D.- defendant indicted for violation of federal firearms sales. Defendant given a guideline range of 41-51 months based on a criminal history category of V and an offense level of 16, Sentencing memorandum filed and argued at sentencing. Defendant receives a sentence of probation.
U.S. v. T.W.- defendant indicted for conspiracy to distribute heroin. Defendant has a criminal history category of II and a guideline range of 15-21 months. Defense attorney argues for probation based on clients cooperation with government. Defendant sentenced to probation.
U.S. v. A.S- Defendant indicted for providing false information to a federal law enforcement officer. Defendant applied for job with Secret Service. During the interview process defendant did not disclose material information regarding his past. Defendant failed to reveal information when given the opportunity and specifically asked. Defendant enters pretrial diversion program.
Florida v. B.H.- defendant was a City of Miami Police Officer charged with sexual battery on a minor. Case went to trial and our Miami attorneys proved that victim was lying and defendant found not guilty.
Florida v. T.T.- defendant convicted after trial of burglary of home. Defendant is career offender and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Defendant and his family hire our criminal defense attorneys to represent him in post conviction hearing. After hearing prosecutor agrees to credit for time served and defendant goes home.
Florida v. A.C.- defendant arrested after Miami Beach Police walk into her home and conduct a search. Search results in discovery of cocaine, meth, exctasy, cannabis and cash. Defendant release from jail with 2 hours of arrest based on our attorneys quick response. Case dismissed within 30 days because our defense attorneys show search was illegal.
South Carolina v. D.M. — strong armed robbery. Case dismissed.
South Carolina v. B.O. — burglary of 1st degree. Charges lowered and defendant enters diversion program.
South Carolina v. A.M. —cocaine drug distribution and possession. Indictment dismissed.
South Carolina v. D.S. — leaving the scene with property damage. Indictment dismissed.
FEDERAL APPEAL RESULTS:
[Federal Appeals Won this Year: ]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
DERRICK LEON SAMUELS,
Defendant – Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00183-RBH-1)
Submitted: June 22, 2010 Decided: July 8, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 09-4346 Document: 28 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Page: 1
Derrick Leon Samuels pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e) (2006). The district court enhanced Samuels’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), after determining that Samuels had three prior convictions for violent felonies. On appeal, Samuels contends that the district court erred in counting his 1994 conviction under South Carolina law for failure to stop for a blue light as a violent felony.
In United States v. Roseboro, 551 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009), we held that a conviction under South Carolina law for failure to stop for a blue light, S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-750(A), constituted a crime of violence under the ACCA only in some circumstances, namely, intentional violations of the statute. Id. at 240. The district court, acting only with the benefit of that decision, determined that Samuels’s conviction under the statute was intentional because “the indictment does indicate the word willfully,” which the district court felt “equate[d] to intentional conduct.” Accordingly, the district court concluded that Samuels’s conviction counted as an ACCA predicate offense.
We recently held, however, that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Chambers v. United States, U.S. , 129 S.Ct. 687 (2009), which was issued eight days after
Case: 09-4346 Document: 28 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Page: 2
Roseboro, “a violation of South Carolina’s blue light statute . . . does not qualify as a predicate offense for purposes of the ACCA.” United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 560 (4th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the district court erred in counting Samuels’s conviction for failure to stop for a blue light as a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for resentencing consistent with our decision in Rivers. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Case: 09-4346 Document: 28 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Page: 3]
Our federal appellate attorneys handle cases in New York, Charleston, Columbia, Richmond, Charlotte, Florence, Atlanta, Greenville, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and in most Federal Courts in the United States, including the United States Supreme Court.