United States v. Darrin Mosley
19-4209
4th Cir.Sep 11, 2020Background
- Darrin Mosley pleaded guilty to: RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and conspiracy to use/carry a firearm in relation to drug trafficking.
- District court sentenced Mosley to concurrent 360-month terms for the RICO and drug counts and 240 months (concurrent) on the firearms count.
- Mosley was a member of the Old York Money Gang (OYMG), which trafficked drugs, routinely carried firearms, and engaged in murders and contract killings.
- At an evidentiary hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mosley aided and abetted the murder of Tyrone Servance and aided in the attempted murders of Dante Preston and Antoinette Featherstone, relying on cooperating-witness testimony and cell-site/GPS data.
- Mosley appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly used uncharged conduct and failed to apply a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard at sentencing, (2) the findings supporting the murder cross-reference were insufficient, and (3) his sentence produced an unwarranted sentencing disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for uncharged conduct at sentencing (Due Process) | Mosley: district court erred by relying on uncharged conduct without proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Gov: sentencing courts may find relevant conduct by a preponderance if Guidelines are advisory and within statutory maximum | Court: preponderance standard is permissible; findings did not increase statutory exposure, so no Due Process violation |
| Sufficiency of findings for murder cross-reference | Mosley: factual findings supporting §2A1.1 cross-reference were insufficient/clearly erroneous | Gov: testimony plus cell-site/GPS corroboration supported findings that Mosley aided and abetted murder and attempted murders | Court: findings not clearly erroneous; murder cross-reference properly applied |
| Procedural reasonableness / unwarranted sentencing disparity | Mosley: 360-month sentence created disparity (e.g., co-defendant got 300 months for fatal stray-bullet shooting) | Gov: district court considered disparity, distinguished Mosley’s planning/lying-in-wait conduct, and has broad §3553(a) discretion | Court: district court adequately addressed disparity, reasonably distinguished conduct, and sentence (below advisory life range) was lawful and reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2009) (due process does not require beyond-a-reasonable-doubt for uncharged conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2008) (sentencing judges may find Guidelines facts by a preponderance when Guidelines are advisory)
- United States v. Mouzone, 687 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2012) (affirming enhanced sentence where district court found murder by a preponderance)
- United States v. Ashford, 718 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: factual findings for cross-references reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2020) (district courts have broad discretion weighing §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (sentences within or below properly calculated Guidelines range are presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142 (4th Cir. 1996) (§3553(a)(6) aims to avoid unwarranted nationwide disparity, not just codefendant disparity)
- United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases on the scope of §3553(a)(6) disparity consideration)