United States v. Sylvester Booker
16-4816
| 4th Cir. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Defendant Sylvester R. Booker pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute ≥1 kg heroin and was sentenced to 324 months.
- Booker signed a statement of facts and during plea allocution admitted responsibility for 10–30 kg of heroin.
- Post-arrest, while in custody, Booker directed coconspirators to retrieve and sell ~20 ounces of heroin hidden at stash locations.
- At sentencing the district court applied enhancements for (1) Booker’s leadership role and (2) obstruction of justice, and entered a forfeiture order based on Booker’s consent and allocution.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting several potential issues, including drug-quantity attribution, role and obstruction enhancements, ineffective assistance, Rule 32(i) compliance, and forfeiture nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Booker) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug-quantity attribution | Booker contends he was coerced into admitting 10–30 kg | Statement of facts and plea allocution are reliable admissions | Court held district court did not clearly err in attributing 10–30 kg |
| Role-in-offense enhancement | Booker challenged leadership enhancement | Record shows Booker was a high-level conspirator who directed others | Court upheld the leadership-role enhancement |
| Obstruction-of-justice enhancement / double-counting | Booker argued he did not obstruct and that enhancement impermissibly double-counted conduct underlying conspiracy | Government asserted Booker directed concealment/distribution of hidden heroin after arrest, which obstructed investigation and was not identical to conspiracy acts | Court held enhancement valid: the post-arrest directive obstructed justice and was not identical to the broad, multi-year conspiracy conduct; no plain error |
| Rule 32(i), ineffective assistance, forfeiture nexus | Booker alleged Rule 32(i) violation, ineffective counsel, and insufficient nexus for forfeiture | Government maintained the court complied with Rule 32(i); ineffective-assistance claim not conclusively shown on record; signed consent and allocution established forfeiture nexus | Court found Rule 32(i) satisfied; ineffective assistance not demonstrable on record (advised to raise under §2255); forfeiture order valid |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005) (double-counting test for obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for factual findings)
- United States v. Mills, 850 F.3d 693 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Garcia-Lagunas, 835 F.3d 479 (4th Cir.) (treatment of precedent and plain-error analysis)
- United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2001) (obstruction enhancement may be applied when act also served as an overt act of conspiracy)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (forfeiture nexus requirement)