United States v. Fred Boadu
637 F. App'x 740
4th Cir.2016Background
- Fred Yao Boadu was convicted by a jury of multiple federal offenses including possession with intent to distribute ≥28 grams of cocaine base, two firearms offenses, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- At initial sentencing (Oct 2013) the district court imposed 240 months below the Guidelines; on first appeal the parties jointly moved to remand for resentencing based on career-offender status.
- This court vacated and remanded (July 2014); at resentencing (Dec 2014) the district court recalculated the Guidelines lower but imposed a statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months.
- On this second appeal counsel filed an Anders brief raising several potential issues (sufficiency as to 28 grams, severance of Count Five, reasonable-doubt instruction, variance between charged “altered” and proven “obliterated” serial number); Boadu submitted a pro se claim about Project Exile and constitutional violations.
- The Government did not file a response. The panel considered whether the mandate rule barred relitigation of issues not raised on the first appeal and reviewed the new sentence for reasonableness under Anders/Gall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boadu) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that cocaine base ≥28 g | Evidence did not establish the 28-gram threshold | Evidence proved the charged quantity; conviction stands | Challenge barred by mandate rule (waived on prior appeal) |
| Severance of Count Five | Trial court should have severed Count Five | No prejudicial misjoinder; joinder proper | Challenge barred by mandate rule |
| Reasonable-doubt instruction request | Court should have given a special reasonable-doubt instruction | Standard instructions were sufficient | Challenge barred by mandate rule |
| Variance: indictment charged altered serial number vs evidence of obliteration | Variance between alleged "altered" and proven "obliterated" serial number is fatal | Any variance was not litigated on first appeal and is waived | Challenge barred by mandate rule; conviction upheld |
| Sentence reasonableness | (No direct challenge in Anders brief) | 180-month statutory mandatory minimum appropriate | Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must file brief when concluding appeal lacks merit)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing reasonableness)
- Louthian v. United States, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (Guidelines-range sentences are presumptively reasonable)
- Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. Clark Mach. Co., 510 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2007) (mandate rule as application of law of the case)
- United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 1993) (mandate rule forecloses relitigation of issues decided on appeal)
- Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2007) (issues not raised on initial appeal are waived and not remanded)
- Omni Outdoor Advertising v. Columbia Outdoor Advertising, 974 F.2d 502 (4th Cir. 1992) (arguments that could have been raised earlier are inappropriate on second appeal)