United States v. James Hackley, IV
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24123
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hackley sold crack cocaine to a government informant; six controlled purchases yielded 6.554 grams for $1,050.
- Hackley attempted to arrange murder-for-hire of the informant after arrest; communicated with an inmate acting as an intermediary.
- Hackley’s letters while in jail sought to influence or prevent the informant’s testimony; he offered or discussed firearms and ways to “get out.”
- An undercover agent posed as an inmate to facilitate a murder-for-hire scheme; Hackley discussed methods of killing and keeping the informant from testifying.
- A seven-count superseding indictment added four charges: murder-for-hire, solicitation, obstruction, and felon-in-possession; Hackley was tried on all eleven counts and convicted on all counts, with a later enhanced sentence based in part on an older conviction.
- Hackley appealed regarding (i) sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and for the separate murder-for-hire-related counts, (ii) a requested entrapment instruction, (iii) felon-in-possession and joinder/severance, (iv) denial of substitute counsel, and (v) the sentence calculation based on prior convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conspiracy to distribute (Count One) sufficiency. | United States contends substantial evidence shows an ongoing Maryland-supplier conspiracy. | Hackley argues the evidence is too thin to prove an agreement. | Evidence supports conspiracy finding despite thin record; continuing relationships inferred against Maryland suppliers. |
| Entrapment instruction for Count Eight. | United States argues no entrapment defense available because no government inducement established. | Hackley asserts evidence of predisposition and Johnson-initiated conduct justifies instruction. | No reversible error; sufficient predisposition shown; entrapment instruction properly denied. |
| Solicitation to commit murder for hire (Count Nine); potential constructive amendment. | United States argues predicate offense §1958 properly grounds Count Nine. | Hackley contends possible reliance on §1512(a)(1) would constructively amend indictment. | No constructive amendment; predicate offenses properly limited to §1958. |
| Felon in possession; joinder/severance (Count Eleven). | United States argues proper joinder; evidence shows firearm relation to other counts. | Hackley seeks severance due to prejudice. | Count Eleven properly joined; no abuse of discretion in denying severance. |
| Denial of change of counsel and sentencing. | Hackley asserts denial of new counsel impeded defense; sentence within guideline range. | Hackley contends misapplication of prior conviction for sentencing. | Denial of substitute counsel affirmed; sentence within properly calculated guideline range; no abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (elements of conspiracy require knowledge and agreement; tacit understanding sufficient)
- Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1975) (conspiracy requires knowing and voluntary agreement; intent element)
- United States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2008) (continuing relationships and repeated transactions may support conspiracy inference)
- United States v. Townsend, 924 F.2d 1385 (4th Cir. 1991) (buyer-seller relationship alone insufficient for conspiracy; context matters)
- United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480 (4th Cir. 1993) (continuing relationships and large quantities can indicate conspiracy)
- Ramos v. United States, 462 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2006) (predisposition to commit crime can support entrapment defense where government inducement exists)
- Phan v. United States, 121 F.3d 149 (4th Cir. 1997) (entrapment inquiry requires more than mere scintilla of evidence)
- United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378 (4th Cir. 2007) (joinder analysis under Rule 8; relatedness of counts to common plan)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonable procedure for evaluating sentencing decisions; procedural reasonableness standard)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasonableness of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) guidance)
- Mendoza-Mendoza v. United States, 597 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2010) (within-range sentences are presumptively reasonable; appellate deference to district court)