United States v. William Graham
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6334
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Graham was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and received a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851.
- Prior to trial five wiretap recordings involving Graham’s codefendants (not Graham) were identified for admissibility as coconspirator statements or under present-sense impressions.
- Trial occurred August 17–24, 2009; codefendants Reeves, Marshall, and Gallardo testified, with Reeves, Marshall, and Gallardo cooperating under plea agreements; government introduced recordings of their conversations.
- Approximately 35,000 wiretap conversations were recorded in the investigation; there were no recordings of Graham speaking on the wire.
- During trial six tapes covering five calls were played; jury had transcripts, and the district court later conducted FRAP 10 proceedings to verify which calls were used; district court found calls 20, 22, 23, 1452, and 1454 were played.
- The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRA transcription omissions require relief | Graham asserts CRA noncompliance prejudiced appeal | Government argues FRAP 10 findings suffice | No relief; FRAP 10 findings supported; CR A noncompliance not prejudicial to appeal |
| Whether coconspirator recordings were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) | Recordings were idle chatter not in furtherance of conspiracy | Conversations were in furtherance of collecting debt to sustain conspiracy | Admissible; conversations in furtherance of conspiracy and ongoing at time of calls |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the wiretap recordings | Admissibility insufficient to show conspiracy existed and connection to Graham | Evidence showed ongoing conspiracy and collection efforts involving Graham | Not an abuse; evidence supported admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) |
| Whether Graham’s life sentence violates constitutional limits (Almendarez-Torres) | Challenge to use of prior felonies to enhance punishment | Supreme Court precedent allows such enhancement | Rejected; Almendarez-Torres exception remains valid; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 202 F.3d 691 (4th Cir. 2000) (CRA transcript omissions not automatically reversible; must show prejudice to appeal)
- United States v. Gillis, 773 F.2d 549 (4th Cir. 1985) (transcript issues can be non-prejudicial to appeal)
- United States v. Huggins, 191 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 1999) (withdrawal from conspiracy and its evidentiary impact)
- United States v. Urbanik, 801 F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1986) (coconspirator statements need not show conspiracy existence for each admission)
- United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2001) (definition of coconspirator statements; in furtherance standard)
- United States v. Walker, 796 F.2d 43 (4th Cir. 1986) (withdrawal burden on defendant)
- Smith v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 714 (2013) (withdrawal burden and conspiracy law)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior offenses exception to Apprendi/Almendarez-Torres)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (validation of prior convictions for criminal sentencing)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (principle of sentencing factors and enhancements)
- Cheek v. United States, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2005) (statutory enhancements and due process)