United States v. Lemont Webb
965 F.3d 262
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- Webb was convicted by a jury of drug-trafficking and money-laundering offenses (drug conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute crack, money-laundering conspiracy and several substantive money-laundering counts).
- Evidence included co-conspirator testimony, controlled buys, wiretap recordings, search-warrant evidence, and a post-arrest admission; the government also introduced Webb’s 2009–2010 state guilty pleas for drug offenses.
- Webb was sentenced to life imprisonment based on a Guidelines offense level of 43; the government conceded one criminal-history point reduction but the Guidelines range remained life.
- At sentencing Webb argued for a lower term based on (1) his age and reduced recidivism risk, (2) his lawful towing business and legitimate income since 2013, (3) sentencing disparities with co-conspirators, and (4) his conduct at proceedings.
- The district court imposed life and gave a brief explanation but did not expressly address three of Webb’s non-frivolous mitigation arguments.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Webb's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of state convictions under Rule 404(b) / Rule 403 | State guilty pleas were not admissible as improper "other-act" evidence and were unfairly prejudicial | The state convictions were intrinsic to the federal conspiracy (same place, time, substance) and thus admissible; not unfairly prejudicial | Affirmed: convictions were intrinsic and admissible; Rule 403 exclusion not warranted |
| Prosecutor’s closing remark about alleged infidelity | The prosecutor’s reference to Webb’s alleged affair was improper and prejudiced the jury | The remark was a fleeting explanation of witness testimony and did not affect the verdict | Affirmed: any error was plain but did not affect substantial rights under plain-error review |
| Double jeopardy (prior state convictions) | Federal prosecution impermissibly tried same conduct after state convictions | Dual-sovereignty permits separate state and federal prosecutions | Affirmed: dual-sovereignty controls (Gamble) so no double jeopardy bar |
| Sentencing procedural reasonableness | District court failed to address non-frivolous arguments (age/recidivism, towing business, sentencing disparity), denying individualized assessment | Court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors and listened to arguments; life sentence within Guidelines | Reversed as to sentence: vacated and remanded for resentencing because court did not expressly address several non-frivolous mitigating arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bush, 944 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2019) (treating overlapping state convictions as intrinsic to federal drug conspiracy)
- United States v. Sutherland, 921 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2019) (Rule 404(b) intrinsic-evidence principle)
- United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 1996) (intrinsic-act evidence admissible when necessary to complete the story)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences; procedural and substantive components)
- United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (district court must address non-frivolous arguments and place individualized assessment on record)