United States v. Chandia
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6968
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chandia was convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia of providing material support to terrorists and to a foreign terrorist organization (18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A, 2339B).
- He challenged the district court’s sentence, specifically the application of the terrorism enhancement under USSG § 3A1.4, which yielded an advisory range of 360 months to life and a 180‑month variance sentence.
- This is Chandia’s third appeal about the terrorism enhancement; this Court previously remanded after Chandia I (2008) for independent findings on specific intent, and after Chandia II (2010) for explicit explanation of motive and independent findings.
- On remand, the district court made independent findings and explained how the facts showed the requisite intent, applying the enhancement and imposing a 180‑month sentence.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the court complied with its mandates and did not err in applying the terrorism enhancement or in the sentencing process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for the terrorism enhancement | Chandika argues clear and convincing proof is required | Chandia argues the court should use the higher standard | Preponderance of the evidence suffices; standard applied was appropriate. |
| Whether the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Chandia asserts key findings were incorrect | Court's findings were plausible and supported by record | Findings are not clearly erroneous; they are plausible given the record. |
| Independent findings and explanation for the enhancement | District court relied on PSR without independent analysis | Need for explicit independent findings on motive | Court made independent findings and explained motive supporting the enhancement. |
| Compliance with §3553(a) and allocution rights | Sentence misweighed §3553(a) factors and violated allocution | Court adequately considered factors and afforded opportunity to be heard | Court adequately weighed §3553(a) factors; no reversible error. |
| Overall reasonableness of the sentence | Sentence excessive given co‑conspirator differences | Variance downward from Guidelines was appropriate | Sentence within permissible discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandia v. United States, 514 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.2008) (remand for independent findings on intent under 3A1.4)
- Chandia v. United States, 395 Fed.Appx. 53 (4th Cir.2010) (remand for independent findings; clarify motive and record)
- Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2004) (terrorism enhancement evidence with knowledge of terrorist goals upheld)