United States v. Charles Bolden, Sr.
691 F. App'x 119
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Charles D. Bolden, Sr. pled guilty to: two counts of conspiracy, three counts of attempted extortion, and two counts of theft from a program receiving federal funds (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 666(a)(1)(A), 1951(a)).
- District court applied a two-level Guidelines enhancement under USSG §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(B) and 2C1.1(b)(2) based on a finding that Bolden caused loss > $6,500.
- Bolden challenged the loss-based enhancement on appeal, arguing it was improperly applied.
- The Fourth Circuit invoked a harmlessness inquiry instead of deciding the Guidelines issue on the merits.
- The district court stated it would have imposed the same 15-month sentence even without the enhancement; the sentence fell at the bottom of the lower Guidelines range if the enhancement were removed.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed substantive reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two-level loss enhancement under USSG §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(B) and 2C1.1(b)(2) was improperly applied | Bolden: enhancement incorrectly applied because loss did not exceed $6,500 | Government: enhancement correctly applied based on district-court loss finding | Court assumed error harmless because district court would have imposed same sentence without enhancement and affirmed |
| Whether any Guidelines error required resentencing or reversal | Bolden: erroneous enhancement would reduce offense level and Guidelines range, so sentence unreasonable | Government: even if enhancement removed, sentence would remain reasonable | Court: applied harmlessness test and substantive-reasonableness review; Bolden failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (authorizes assumed-error harmlessness inquiry for Guidelines errors)
- United States v. Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2013) (requires certainty that result at sentencing would be same absent enhancement)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (sentences within or below properly calculated Guidelines range are presumptively reasonable)