United States v. Michael Kelly
677 F. App'x 821
4th Cir.2017Background
- Michael Ramond Kelly pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment (within Guidelines).
- The presentence calculation treated Kelly as an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA based on multiple North Carolina convictions for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief, raising questions about (1) denial of a 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and (2) substantive reasonableness of the sentence; Kelly filed no supplemental brief.
- The district court applied a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice after Kelly participated in a revenge-motivated attack on a material witness post-arrest; video and email evidence undercut his self-defense/remorse claim.
- The Fourth Circuit ordered supplemental briefing only on whether certain North Carolina convictions qualified as ACCA violent felonies, but the parties agreed the relevant convictions did qualify; the court limited review to issues briefed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kelly’s prior NC convictions qualify as ACCA violent felonies | Kelly questioned classification of some priors (argued not violent felonies) | Govt. agreed at least the assault-with-intent-to-kill convictions qualified and that Kelly had three such convictions | Court accepted parties’ position; did not disturb ACCA designation for those convictions |
| Denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction (USSG §3E1.1) | Kelly contended he accepted responsibility and deserved the reduction | Govt. and district court pointed to Kelly’s orchestration/participation in an attack on a witness and obstruction enhancement | Court: no clear error in denying the reduction; obstruction enhancement and lack of withdrawal from criminal conduct justified denial |
| Substantive reasonableness of a within-Guidelines 300-month sentence | Kelly argued sentence excessive and inconsistent with claimed rehabilitation | Govt. relied on Kelly’s extensive firearms history and the witness attack to justify sentence | Court: within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; Kelly failed to rebut presumption; sentence affirmed |
| Review under Anders for meritorious appeal issues | Counsel argued no meritorious issues except those raised | Govt. responded to issues raised; court conducted independent review | Court found no meritorious grounds for appeal and affirmed; counsel must notify Kelly of cert. rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes procedures when appellate counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192 (Fourth Circuit sentencing-reasonableness principles)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Burns, 781 F.3d 688 (standard of review for acceptance-of-responsibility determinations)
- United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171 (obstruction-of-justice enhancement generally precludes acceptance reduction absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599 (waiver of arguments not raised by the parties)