Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

United States of America v. Saiydin Muhammad

Date: 01-02-2022

Case Number: 16-4508

Judge: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges

Court:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro

Plaintiff's Attorney: Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant

United States Attorney

Defendant's Attorney:



Richmond, VA - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory



Description:

Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a interference with commerce by robbery charge.





We review "de novo the question whether a prior state conviction constitutes a

predicate felony conviction for purposes of a federal sentence enhancement.” United

States v. Valdovinos, 760 F.3d 322, 325 (4th Cir. 2014). The district court correctly

applied the career offender enhancement to Muhammad if: "(1) the defendant was at least

eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction;

(2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a

controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony

convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a).

Prior to 2016, a "crime of violence” was an offense punishable by more than a

year of imprisonment that "(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use

of physical force against the person of another [the force clause], or (2) is burglary of a

dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives [the enumerated clause], or

otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to

another [the residual clause].” USSG § 4B1.2(a). At the time, Application Note 1 to the

Guideline listed robbery as one of several enumerated offenses expressly covered by the

3

definition. USSG § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1. Effective August 1, 2016, the "crime of violence”

definition was amended to expressly include robbery as an enumerated offense in USSG

§ 4B1.2(a)(2), rather than relegating it to the commentary. In addition, the residual

clause was removed. See USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2).

Muhammad, who was sentenced prior to the 2016 amendments, does not

challenge the authority of Application Note 1, and as such, we conclude that robbery was

part of the pre-2016 version of § 4B1.2(a). We have previously ruled that North Carolina

common law robbery categorically qualified as "robbery,” as that term is used in § 4B1.2.

See United States v. Gattis, 877 F.3d 150, 156-60 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct.

1572 (2018). As such, Muhammad's common law robbery conviction was a valid career

offender predicate even prior to the 2016 amendments. In addition, we further note that

North Carolina common law robbery would also satisfy the residual clause of § 4B1.2.

Accordingly, we affirm Muhammad's sentence.
Outcome:
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



AFFIRMED
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of United States of America v. Saiydin Muhammad?

The outcome was: We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

Which court heard United States of America v. Saiydin Muhammad?

This case was heard in <center><h4><b> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT </b> <br> <font color="green"><i>On appeal from The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro </i></font></center></h4>, VA. The presiding judge was Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Saiydin Muhammad?

Plaintiff's attorney: Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney. Defendant's attorney: Richmond, VA - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.

When was United States of America v. Saiydin Muhammad decided?

This case was decided on January 2, 2022.