United States v. Montez Gaddy
656 F. App'x 628
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Montez Gaddy, driving a Mustang, struck a stationary vehicle occupied by Deputy U.S. Marshal Joe Graham while attempting to flee a traffic stop, then led police on a high-speed chase and was apprehended.
- A jury convicted Gaddy under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b) for using a vehicle as a dangerous weapon against a federal officer.
- The district court sentenced Gaddy to 120 months’ imprisonment after applying U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault) as the base offense guideline.
- The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Gaddy intended to cause bodily injury with the vehicle and applied (1) a four-level dangerous-weapon enhancement under § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B), (2) a two-level § 2A2.2(b)(7) enhancement for conviction under § 111(b), and (3) a six-level upward adjustment under § 3A1.2(b) because the victim was a government officer and Gaddy was motivated by that status.
- Gaddy appealed, arguing erroneous Guidelines calculations, Apprendi/Alleyne Sixth Amendment violations, and improper/duplicative enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guideline selection: whether § 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault) rather than § 2A2.4 (Obstructing Officers) governs | Govt: § 2A2.2 applies because the conduct was a felonious assault involving a dangerous weapon with intent to cause bodily injury | Gaddy: conduct was obstruction; intent to cause bodily injury not established | Court: § 2A2.2 applies — jury found vehicle was a dangerous weapon and court reasonably inferred intent to cause bodily injury |
| Judge-found intent and Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Alleyne) | Gaddy: intent to injure increased penalty and thus required jury finding beyond reasonable doubt | Govt: intent finding affected Guidelines only, not statutory max/min | Court: No Apprendi/Alleyne violation; judge may find Guidelines facts by preponderance; intent did not change statutory range |
| Dangerous-weapon enhancement under § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) and potential double counting with § 2A2.2(b)(7) | Gaddy: enhancements double count and are duplicative | Govt: commentary mandates both when intent to cause bodily injury with a dangerous weapon exists; fleeing conduct adds separate dangerousness | Court: Both enhancements properly applied; double counting not prohibited by guideline language |
| Victim-officer enhancement under § 3A1.2(b) and knowledge of victim’s status | Gaddy: did not know Graham was an officer | Govt: lights activated; eye contact; defendant’s testimony shows awareness | Court: Preponderance supports that Gaddy knew Graham was a law enforcement officer and was motivated by that status; § 3A1.2(b) properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir.) (standard of appellate review for reasonableness of sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review and sentencing procedure)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory penalty beyond prescribed maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements for jury)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (judicial factfinding may inform Guidelines sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Rue, 988 F.2d 94 (10th Cir.) (interpretation of aggravated assault definition under the Guidelines)
- United States v. Morris, 131 F.3d 1136 (5th Cir.) (use of vehicle in reckless flight can justify dangerous-weapon enhancement)