United States v. Dawayne Brown
892 F.3d 385
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Brown, Boston, Matthews, Adona (and others) were charged in a large indictment for running a PCP distribution operation in Woodberry Village; evidence included guns, PCP vials, phones linking participants, and testimony from cooperating witnesses.
- Brown was convicted at trial of second-degree burglary while armed, possession with intent to distribute PCP (accountable for 76.6 g), and possession of an unregistered firearm; sentenced to 14 years.
- Boston was convicted of possession with intent to distribute PCP based on presence in a searched apartment, a key found on him, palm print on a PCP vial, and witness testimony; sentenced to 8 years.
- Matthews was convicted only of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; the district court applied prior-conviction enhancements and sentenced him above the Guidelines to 108 months.
- Adona pled guilty to the drug conspiracy and separately to a D.C. Superior Court attempted-assault-with-a-dangerous-weapon charge; district court sentenced him to 108 months federal, to run consecutively to a 28‑month D.C. sentence.
- Appeals: Brown and Boston challenged instructions/evidence; Adona challenged the consecutive sentence and alleged double counting; Matthews challenged the characterization of his prior as a "crime of violence" and the sufficiency of the district court's explanation for an above-Guidelines variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by informing jury of Brown's prior firearm conviction | Brown: disclosure was improper and prejudicial | Govt/District: instruction was invited by Brown's counsel | Held: No reversible error; Brown invited the instruction |
| Whether a special unanimity instruction was required for Brown's possession-with-intent count | Brown: jurors may have relied on different acts/evidence and unanimity was required | Govt: no controlling precedent requires sua sponte unanimity instruction | Held: No plain error; failure to give such instruction was not required here |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Boston's possession-with-intent conviction | Boston: insufficient because no contraband found on person | Govt: key, constructive-possession factors (key, palm print, proximity, odor, operation method, witness) supported conviction | Held: Evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia standard; conviction affirmed |
| Whether Adona waived appeal of his sentence and whether consecutive sentence violated U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) | Adona: plea waiver ambiguous based on plea colloquy and sentencing should have been concurrent under §5G1.3(b) | Govt: written waiver bars appeal; district court reasonably exercised discretion to impose consecutive sentence | Held: Waiver invalidated by district court's misleading colloquy; plain error in failing to apply §5G1.3(b); federal sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether Matthews' prior D.C. attempted-assault-with-a-dangerous-weapon conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" for Guidelines enhancement | Matthews: prior does not categorically require violent force; enhancement improper | Govt: elements (use of dangerous weapon) satisfy elements clause; circuit precedent supports enhancement | Held: Prior conviction qualifies under the elements clause; enhancement proper |
| Whether district court adequately explained its upward variance for Matthews | Matthews: explanation was generic and duplicated Guidelines factors; insufficient individualized reasons for variance | Govt: court articulated deterrence, protection, multiple weapons, related violence, community impact; adequate | Held: Explanation inadequate under circuit precedent; procedural error; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory; courts must consult them)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standards for reviewing variances and procedural requirements at sentencing)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (error in Guidelines calculation often shows reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Redrick, 841 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir.) (prior offenses involving dangerous weapons qualify as crimes of violence under elements clause)
- United States v. Hurt, 527 F.3d 1347 (D.C. Cir.) (failure to give special unanimity instruction sua sponte is not plain error in certain contexts)
- United States v. Brown, 808 F.3d 865 (D.C. Cir.) (district courts must give specific, individualized reasons for above-Guidelines variances)