423 F. App'x 541
6th Cir.2011Background
- Amos participated in a staged drug deal with Brogden at 150 East Judson Ave., Youngstown, Ohio, involving undercover ATF agent Smerglia.
- Cambridge, the informant, anticipated Ike Lake would appear; Lake did not show, and Amos was presented as the dealer.
- Amos and Brogden were armed; Smerglia was unaware of Amos’s identity as a federal agent and was recording the transaction.
- After Smerglia left to retrieve money and a scale, Amos grew nervous but the plan continued; Smerglia returned with money in a Crown Royal bag and a scale.
- Amos allegedly followed Smerglia, fired at him, grazed him, and fled; Smerglia was wounded in the foot; the gun and “cocaine” were later discarded; ballistic evidence linked the gun to Amos.
- Amos was indicted on five counts, tried in 2008, convicted on all counts, and sentenced to 330 months; on appeal, the district court’s sentencing and sufficiency of the evidence were challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of the sentence | Amos argues the district court failed to address mitigating §3553(a) factors. | Amos asserts the court did not weigh his case-specific circumstances adequately. | Sentence found procedurally reasonable. |
| Consideration of §3553(a) factors | Amos contends the court did not adequately consider his age and background. | Amos argues these factors warranted a lower sentence. | Court properly considered and articulated §3553(a) factors. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder of a federal agent | Amos controverts specific intent and malice aforethought. | Prosecution showed intent and malice; trial evidence supported conviction. | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for attempted murder of a federal agent. |
| Consolidation/merger of counts and guideline calculation | Argues about merge of counts and guideline range impact. | District court merged certain counts and correctly calculated range. | Counts merged appropriately; sentence within advisory range upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review and §3553(a) factors; procedural/structural guidance for sentencing)
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (procedural reasonableness and meaningful appellate review requirements)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)