United States v. Randolph Spain
666 F. App'x 313
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Randolph Johnson Spain was convicted by a federal jury of two counts of interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2421.
- The district court sentenced Spain to the statutory maximum of 240 months after an upward departure from the Guidelines.
- Spain moved for judgment of acquittal on the second count for insufficiency of evidence; the district court denied the motion.
- The district court applied a Guidelines cross-reference from § 2G1.1(c) to § 2A3.1 based on findings that the offense involved conduct covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2242 (coercion/fear).
- The court assigned criminal history points to two state convictions (a 2011 Virginia prostitution matter involving four counts and a related 2011 conviction from an appeal), and two points to a 2013 North Carolina assault conviction; Spain argued some of these convictions were on appeal and thus mis-scored.
- The Government conceded error as to criminal history scoring (and double-counting of the Virginia convictions) and joined Spain in asking the appellate court to vacate the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 2 (interstate transportation for prostitution) | Spain: evidence insufficient to support conviction on Count 2 | Government: record contains substantial evidence supporting jury verdict | Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to Government |
| Guidelines cross-reference to § 2A3.1 (use of § 2242 coercion/fear) | Spain: cross-reference application was erroneous and raised Sixth Amendment concerns | Government: cross-reference proper; sentencing facts may be found by judge by preponderance where Guidelines are advisory | Affirmed — cross-reference properly applied; Sixth Amendment claim foreclosed by circuit precedent |
| Sixth Amendment jury-trial challenge to sentencing facts | Spain: judge relied on facts not found by jury to increase Guidelines range | Government: precedent allows judge-findings for Guidelines so long as advisory and within statutory max | Rejected — binding precedent permits judge factfinding for advisory Guidelines (no Sixth Amendment violation) |
| Criminal history scoring (appeals and double-counting) | Spain: some prior convictions were on appeal and/or were double-counted; scoring was erroneous | Government: conceded error as to scoring and double-counting | Vacated sentence and remanded — cannot determine harmlessness of scoring errors; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. United States, 451 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for denial of Rule 29 motion)
- Palacios v. United States, 677 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2012) (definition of substantial evidence review)
- Dingess v. United States, 315 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1963) (prostitution need only be predominant purpose of travel under § 2421)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- Manigan v. United States, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of legal conclusions and clear-error review of sentencing factual findings)
- Benkahla v. United States, 530 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2008) (circuit precedent permitting judge factfinding by preponderance for Guidelines so long as advisory)
- Martin v. United States, 378 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2004) (criminal history point treatment when prior conviction is on appeal)
- Savillon-Matute v. United States, 636 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 2011) (harmlessness standard for incorrect Guidelines calculation)