United States v. Jose Bran
776 F.3d 276
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Bran, leader of MS-13 Richmond Sailors Set, was convicted on five counts related to murder, attempted murder, and racketeering.
- Counts 1–2 concern murder in aid of racketeering; Counts 3 involves use of a firearm during a crime of violence causing death; Counts 4–5 involve conspiracy and maiming in aid of racketeering.
- The district court sentenced Counts 1, 4, and 5 to 120, 120, and 360 months; Count 2 to life; Count 3 to life, consecutive to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5.
- For Count 3, the jury found Bran guilty of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence causing death, and answered a special interrogatory about discharging the firearm.
- Bran moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the verdict form did not prove use of a firearm; the district court denied this challenge.
- On appeal Bran argues insufficiency of evidence for § 924(j) and that Count 3’s sentence must not be mandatory consecutive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(j) | Bran argues the verdict fails to prove use of a firearm. | Bran contends the special-interrogatory result shows acquittal on use element. | Evidence supports § 924(j) conviction; general verdict plus interrogatory support. |
| Consecutiveness of Count 3 sentence | Bran argues mandatory consecutive sentence applies due to § 924(c) linkage. | Bran asserts § 924(j) should not be constrained by mandatory consecutive scheme. | The court affirmed the mandatory consecutive sentencing under § 924(j) to § 924(c) scheme. |
| Jury instructions and verdict form | Challenged the form/instructions on Count 3 affecting validity of conviction. | No error in instructions; verdict form consistent with elements. | No reversible error; verdict form and instructions sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. United States, 275 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2001) ( outlines § 924(j) and § 924(c) relationship and aiding-and-abetting liability)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court 1993) (defines use of a firearm for § 924(c))
- Berrios v. United States, 676 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2012) (consecutive sentence mandate under § 924(j) discussed)
- Battle v. United States, 289 F.3d 661 (10th Cir. 2002) (treats § 924(j) as a sentencing factor, not discrete offense)
- Allen v. United States, 247 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2001) (discusses § 924(j) as additive punishment within § 924(c) framework)
- Julian v. United States, 633 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2011) (consecutive sentence mandate not applied to § 924(j) offense)
- Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (Supreme Court 2004) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs unless absurd)
- Johnson (Shaheem), 219 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2000) (early articulation of discrete § 924(j) offense elements)