|
|
Dr. Malachi Z. York
Our Constitution
COPY CAT CASE
VIDEO
Government Key
Witness Recants Her Testimony
Federal Court Pretrial
Transcripts
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee,
v. Dwight D. York, A.k.a. Malakai Z. York, Etc.,
Defendant-appellant
- 428 F.3d 1325 United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit. - 428 F.3d 1325
October 27, 2005
Richard S. Moultrie, Jr., Macon, GA, Dean S. Daskal,
Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia.
Before BIRCH, HULL and BOWMAN*, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1 Defendant-Appellant Dwight D. York appeals his convictions and
1,620-month sentence. After review and oral
argument, we affirm.
2 Dwight D. York ("York") is the leader of the United Nation of
Nuwaubian Moors, a religious ministry/Native
American tribe that has existed in some form since the 1960s.1
Over the years, the Nuwaubian organization's
official philosophy (as well as its name) has changed several
times, alternatively finding its basis in Islamic,
Hebrew, ancient Egyptian, Yamasee Indian, and various other
cultures and religions. The organization was founded
in Brooklyn, New York; however, in approximately 1990 the
Nuwaubians moved to a farm in Sullivan County, New York.
In early 1993, York began to move the Nuwaubians from Sullivan
County to a large plot of land in Eatonton,
Georgia.
3 On November 21, 2003, a grand jury in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Macon
Division) returned a second superseding indictment (the
"Indictment"),2 which formed the basis for York's
fourteen-day trial in January 2004. The Indictment contains
thirteen counts.
4 Specifically, Count One charges York with a Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") conspiracy,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Count Two charges a
substantive RICO offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1962(c). The RICO counts are predicated on specific instances in
which York: (1) engaged in the interstate
transport of minors with the intent to engage in unlawful sexual
activity; (2) engaged in interstate travel for
the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity with minors;
and (3) unlawfully structured cash transactions
in order to avoid federal reporting requirements. Count Three
charges York with general criminal conspiracy to
engage in the interstate transport of minors with the intent to
engage in unlawful sexual activity, as well as
with conspiracy to unlawfully structure cash transactions to
avoid federal reporting requirements, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371.
5 Counts Four, Five, Six, and Eight charge York with the
specific interstate-transport-of-minors-for-sex acts that
form the basis for those predicate acts in the RICO and
conspiracy counts, in violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(a). Specifically, Count Four charges the interstate
transport of a minor, identified as "I.J.," from
Sullivan County, New York to Eatonton, Georgia in February 1993.
Count Five charges the interstate transport of
three minors, identified as "K.H.," "A.N.," and "D.N.," from
Sullivan County to Eatonton in April 1993. Count Six
charges the interstate transport of a minor, identified as "A.T.,"
from Kings County, New York to Georgia in April
1993. Count Eight charges the interstate transport of three
minors, identified as "A.N.," "K.L.," and "S.W.," from
Georgia to Florida in 1996.
6 Count Seven charges York with a 1996 act of interstate travel
from Georgia to Florida for the purpose of
engaging in unlawful sexual activity with minors, in violation
of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). The minors in
Count Seven are the same minors named in Count Eight.
7 Counts Nine, Ten, and Eleven charge York with the acts of
unlawfully structuring cash transactions that form the
basis for those predicate acts in the RICO and conspiracy counts
of the Indictment. Specifically, Counts Nine,
Ten, and Eleven charge York with three acts of unlawfully
structuring cash transactions to avoid federal reporting
requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) and 31 U.S.C.
§ 5324(a)(3). Count Nine charges York with
unlawfully structuring cash transactions on or about September
29-30, 1999. Count Ten charges York with unlawfully
structuring cash transactions on or about October 6-8, 1999.
Count Eleven charges York with unlawfully structuring
cash transactions on or about April 5-11, 2000. Finally, Counts
Twelve and Thirteen are forfeiture counts.
8 At trial, there was substantial evidence that under York's
leadership, the Nuwaubians' lifestyle was highly
restricted.3 York had many "wives" who served his business and
personal needs. York's followers were expected to
abide by his rules or risk punishment or expulsion from the
Nuwaubian organization. Men and women did not live
together; children beyond toddler age were generally separated
from their parents; and children were separated by
sex and age and lived in different buildings and rooms
accordingly. Children were home-schooled and usually
interacted with their biological parents for only specific,
short periods of time.
9 Several witnesses testified that York, both in Sullivan
County, New York and in Eatonton, Georgia, as well as in
Athens, Georgia, engaged in a regular course of sexual contact
with underage children within the Nuwaubian
organization, including oral, vaginal, and anal sex. Some of the
children were as young as six years old when the
initial sexual contact with York occurred. Certain of York's
"wives" and older sexual partners (some still
underage themselves) helped recruit or encourage younger
children to participate in sex acts with York.
10 Additionally, there was substantial evidence that York owned
and operated a number of stores and outlets
throughout the country that sold religious and non-religious
Nuwaubian items. A "finance office" in Eatonton,
Georgia, staffed by various Nuwaubians, was responsible for
collecting and handling the profits from York's
businesses. In addition to the sex crime evidence at trial,
witnesses testified that York instructed the workers
in the "finance office" never to deposit $10,000 or more in cash
into any of his bank accounts at any given time,
in order to evade federal cash transaction reporting
requirements.
11 The jury convicted York on eleven of the thirteen counts in
the Indictment, acquitting York on Counts Eight and
Twelve. The district court sentenced York to the statutory
maximum prison term on each count of conviction, to be
served consecutively, yielding a total sentence of 1,620 months'
incarceration. York timely appealed.
12 On appeal, York raises several assignments of error,
including: (1) the Indictment misjoined the sexual abuse
charges with the financial-structuring charges, and the district
court erred in refusing to sever those charges;
(2) the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the RICO
counts because the United Nation of Nuwaubian Moors
is not an "enterprise" under RICO and because there is an
insufficient connection between York's alleged acts and
the Nuwaubian organization; (3) the district court erred in
refusing to dismiss the Indictment because the
Indictment was improperly returned by a grand jury tainted by
pre-trial publicity; (4) the district court erred in
allowing the government to call a certain witness in rebuttal,
and further erred by refusing to allow York to call
his own rebuttal witness thereafter; (5) there was insufficient
evidence to convict York of the charges that he
transported minors in interstate commerce with the intent that
the minors would engage in unlawful sexual
activity, and further, the government did not put forth
sufficient evidence to prove that any underlying sexual
activity undertaken by York was actually unlawful; (6) the
district court erred in denying York's motion to
dismiss two counts of the Indictment because the minor victim
was undisputedly over the age of consent at the time
the sexual act took place;4 (7) the district court erred in
denying York a continuance when York switched lead
counsel approximately two weeks before trial; (8) York's
sentence violates the Sixth Amendment under United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005),
because the district court enhanced his sentence
based on facts not reflected in the jury's verdict; (9) York's
sentence is invalid under Booker because he was
sentenced under a mandatory, rather than advisory, guidelines
scheme; and (10) York's sentence violates the ex
post facto clause of the Constitution because York was sentenced
under the November 2000 edition of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") rather than under
the November 1993 edition of the Guidelines.5
13 After careful review of the voluminous record in this case,
as well as the arguments of the parties in both
their briefs and at oral argument, we conclude that all of
York's claims of error lack merit.6 Only York's pre-
trial publicity and severance claims, along with York's three
assignments of sentencing error, warrant further
discussion.
14 In late October 2003, the district court granted York's
motion to change venue and ordered that the location of
York's trial be moved from the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia (Macon Division) to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia (Brunswick Division). In its change-of-venue
order, the district court "first note[d] that the Government has
not objected to Defendant's motion." The district
court then stated that it had "grave concerns about trying to
select a jury in this case in any division in the
Macon and Atlanta media markets" and concluded that York could
not receive "a fair and impartial trial" if the
trial were to take place in Macon.7
15 Approximately one month after the change-of-venue order, the
grand jury issued the second superseding
indictment (the Indictment), on which York was ultimately tried.
The grand jury was chosen from the same pool of
individuals from which any trial jury would have been chosen if
York's trial had actually taken place within the
Middle District of Georgia (Macon Division).
16 After the Indictment issued in November 2003, York moved for
its dismissal, arguing that if the trial jury pool
was tainted by pre-trial publicity as of October 2003, then it
must follow that the Indictment — issued by
a Macon-area grand jury approximately one month after the
change-of-venue order — must also be tainted due
to pre-indictment publicity. The district court denied York's
motion, concluding that York "failed to show that
the pre-indictment publicity resulted in actual bias or
prejudice against him" before the grand jury. The district
court found that the existence of pre-trial publicity by itself,
or even evidence that the grand jury may have
been aware of the publicity, was insufficient to carry York's
burden of showing actual bias or prejudice in the
grand jurors' decision to indict. The district court concluded
that the grand jury need not deliberate in a
"`sterile chamber'" and that pre-trial publicity alone was an
inadequate ground upon which to base the dismissal
of the Indictment.
17 With regard to its change-of-venue order, the district court
drew a distinction between the role of the grand
jury and a trial jury, pointing out that the grand jury is an
investigative and accusatorial body "`unimpeded by
the evidentiary and procedural restrictions applicable to a
criminal trial.'" The district court then classified
its earlier decision to permit a change of venue as one taken
out of "an abundance of caution" and found that
dismissal of the Indictment was "far too extreme a remedy under
these circumstances."
18 The district court's refusal to dismiss the Indictment based
on pre-trial publicity was not error, much less
reversible error.8 First, our decision in United States v.
Waldon, 363 F.3d 1103, 1109-10 (11th Cir. 2004), is
controlling. In that case, as here, the defendant Waldon argued
that pre-trial publicity prejudiced the grand jury
such that dismissal of his second superseding indictment was
required. Moreover, just as in this case, the Waldon
Court recognized that "case was undoubtedly the subject of much
press in the Jacksonville area." Waldon, 363 F.3d
at 1109. Nevertheless, this Court squarely held in Waldon that
"publicity is generally not a basis for dismissal
of an indictment." Id. In Waldon, we pointed out that the
defendant's pre-trial publicity argument misconstrued
"the role of the grand jury, which is an `investigative and
accusatorial [body] unimpeded by the evidentiary and
procedural restrictions applicable to a criminal trial.'" Id.
(quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338,
349, 94 S.Ct. 613, 620, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)). We concluded
that the Waldon district court did not err in failing
to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of pre-trial publicity
because "the concern over adverse publicity is its
effect on the fairness of the ensuing trial, and not its effect
on the grand jury."9 Id. at 1109-10.
19 Although Waldon governs here, York nevertheless argues that
his situation is distinguishable from, and not
controlled by, Waldon because in his case, the district court
issued a change-of-venue order on the specific
ground of excess pre-trial publicity and expressly noted its
"grave concerns" about picking a trial jury from the
Macon area. In other words, York argues that Waldon does not
bind the panel in this case because here, it was
"`judicially recognized'" that the jury pool in Macon was unduly
influenced by pre-trial publicity.
20 We reject York's argument because the amount of the pre-trial
publicity in Waldon was not the basis for the
Waldon decision; indeed, in Waldon, we expressly assumed a high
level of pre-trial publicity. See id. at 1109.
Rather, our decision in Waldon was based on the entirely
different functions of the grand jury vis-a-vis the trial
jury and the different types of evidentiary restrictions before
each body. The point in Waldon was, and the point
remains today, that the grand jury is not impeded by the
evidentiary and procedural restrictions applicable to
trial juries. Id. A grand jury investigation "may be triggered
by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the
prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors."
Calandra, 414 U.S. at 344, 94 S.Ct. at 618. Moreover,
"[t]he grand jury's sources of information are widely drawn, and
the validity of an indictment is not affected by
the character of the evidence considered." Id. at 344-45, 94
S.Ct. at 618. As a result, the district court's
conclusion that a change-of-trial-venue from the Macon area was
warranted does not necessarily mean, as York
argues, that the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the
Indictment issued by a grand jury from the Macon
area.
21 We do recognize that Waldon states that publicity is
"generally not a basis for dismissal of an indictment."
Waldon, 363 F.3d at 1109 (emphasis added). We further
acknowledge that York maintains that Calandra requires
dismissal of his Indictment because the Supreme Court recognized
in Calandra that the grand jury is not merely an
investigative body but also an institution that exists for "the
protection of citizens against unfounded criminal
prosecutions." Calandra, 414 U.S. at 343, 94 S.Ct. at 617.
However, York fails to explain how his prosecution was
rendered "unfounded" by the publicity that surrounded the
Indictment. This is particularly true given Calandra's
specific recognition that an indictment's validity is not
affected by the type of evidence considered by a grand
jury. Id. at 344-45, 94 S.Ct. at 618-19.
22 More importantly, and in any event, York has failed to
establish that publicity surrounding his case
"substantially influenced" the ultimate decision to indict him
and thereby caused him actual prejudice. Bank of
Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S.Ct. 2369,
2374, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988) (dismissal of
indictment due to error in grand jury proceedings is only
appropriate where "`it is established that the violation
substantially influenced the grand jury's decision to indict,'
or if there is `grave doubt' that the decision to
indict was free from the substantial influence of such
violations") (citation omitted). Indeed, York overstates
the significance of the district court's change-of-venue order,
given that York's venue motion was unopposed and
the district court later described its decision to grant the
venue motion as a decision taken out of "an abundance
of caution." For all of these reasons, and based on the record
and factual circumstances of this case, we reject
York's argument that the district court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the Indictment due to pre-trial
publicity.
23 York alternatively asserts that the Indictment misjoined the
sexual abuse charges with the unlawful financial
structuring charges, and that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to sever those
charges.10 In response, the government emphasizes that these
charges are not totally unrelated and that there was
evidence at trial that York staffed his "finance office" with
only women and preferred that the positions of
greatest responsibility within the "finance office" be staffed
only by women with whom York had previously had a
sexual relationship.
24 In order to show that the district court wrongly denied his
motion to sever, York must show that he suffered
"actual prejudice" from any misjoinder that allegedly may have
occurred. See United States v. Hersh, 297 F.3d
1233, 1242-43 & n. 14 (11th Cir. 2002) (regardless of whether or
not charges were initially misjoined, in order to
show that the district court abused its discretion in denying a
motion to sever, the defendant must demonstrate
that he suffered "actual prejudice" or "compelling prejudice"
from the misjoinder that caused "`substantial and
injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's
verdict'") (citation omitted).
25 Here, we readily conclude that York has failed to show that
he suffered "actual prejudice" from the alleged
misjoinder of the charges and the denial of his severance
motion. Id. at 1243 (finding no actual prejudice where
child pornography charges were allegedly misjoined with charges
of child molestation, and holding that "`more than
some prejudice must be shown; the appellant must demonstrate
that he received an unfair trial and suffered
compelling prejudice'" via more than "`conclusory allegations'")
(citation omitted). Although York conclusorily
asserts that the alleged misjoinder "unfairly circumvented" the
statute of limitations for many of the alleged sex
acts, York also acknowledges that the RICO charge rendered any
statute of limitations argument moot, stating in
his reply brief that "[h]ad it not been for the umbrella of
RICO, these acts would not have been prosecutable."
See also United States v. Welch, 656 F.2d 1039, 1051 & n. 20
(5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 1981) (substantive RICO and
RICO conspiracy charges "can provide an overall connection that
will allow the joinder of seemingly unrelated
acts");11 United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525, 1544-45 (11th
Cir. 1995) (five-year statute of limitations for
substantive RICO charge only requires that at least one
predicate act be committed within five years of the date
defendant was charged in the indictment).
26 Moreover, the jury was expressly instructed that it was to
consider each count of the Indictment separately and
was further instructed that merely finding York guilty of one
charged offense was not to influence its verdict as
to the other charged offenses. In Hersh, we found a similar
limiting instruction significant in affirming a
district court's denial of a motion to sever. Hersh, 297 F.3d at
1244 ("`If the possible prejudice may be cured by
a cautionary instruction severance is not required.'") (citation
omitted). Further, the jury acquitted York on two
of the thirteen counts, evincing that it considered each count
separately. For all of the foregoing reasons, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying York's
motion to sever.
27 We first outline the manner in which York's sentence was
calculated and then review his sentencing claims.
28 1. Pre-Sentence Investigation Report and Sentencing Hearing
29 Prior to York's sentencing, a probation officer prepared a
Pre-Sentence Investigation report ("PSI") utilizing
the November 2000 edition of the Guidelines.12 The PSI
recommended a base offense level of twenty-seven, under
U.S.S.G. §§ 2G1.1(c)(2), 2A3.1, and 3D1.1 (2000).13 The PSI also
recommended: (1) a four-level increase under
U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(2)(A) because the victim in each relevant
group was under age twelve when he or she was first
molested by York; (2) a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. §
2A3.1(b)(3)(A) because the victims were under York's
care and supervisory control; (3) a four-level increase under
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) because York exercised a
leadership role and/or the Nuwaubian enterprise involved more
than five participants and was otherwise extensive;
and (4) a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 because York
utilized a person under the age of eighteen to
commit the offense. These increases resulted in an adjusted
offense level of thirty-nine. The PSI then applied a
multiple-count adjustment of four levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
3D1.4, for a combined adjusted offense level of
forty-three. York's criminal history category of I and adjusted
offense level of forty-three yielded a Guidelines
range of life imprisonment.
30 York filed several written objections to the PSI. York's
objections asserted that the 1993 edition of the
Guidelines — rather than the 2000 edition — should
have been used to calculate his sentence, and
that the use of the 2000 edition of the Guidelines violated the
ex post facto clause of the Constitution. York did
not, however, raise any Booker objections in the district court.
31 At York's sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the
findings in the PSI and rejected York's ex post
facto argument. Given that York's Guidelines range was life
imprisonment on each count, the district court then
sentenced York to the statutory maximum for each count of
conviction, with the sentence on each count to run
consecutively. Specifically, the district court sentenced York
to 240 months' imprisonment on Count One; 240
months' imprisonment on Count Two; 60 months' imprisonment on
Count Three; 180 months' imprisonment on Count Four;
180 months' imprisonment on Count Five; 180 months' imprisonment
on Count Six; 180 months' imprisonment on Count
Seven; 120 months' imprisonment on Count Nine; 120 months'
imprisonment on Count Ten; and 120 months' imprisonment
on Count Eleven, for a total sentence of 1,620 months'
imprisonment.
32 At sentencing, the district court expressly stated that it
found York's sentence "appropriate" in light of "the
nature of the crimes, the victims involved, the length of the
offense, and the totality of the circumstances." At
no point during sentencing did the district court indicate that
it desired to impose a lesser sentence than that
called for by the Guidelines, or that it felt that the
Guidelines range was overly harsh.
33 On appeal, York does not contend that there is insufficient
evidence to support the district court's findings
of fact as to his specific sentencing enhancements, or that the
district court legally misapplied or miscalculated
those sentencing enhancements. York simply contends that his
sentence violates Booker because the district court
imposed extra-verdict sentencing enhancements under a mandatory
Guidelines scheme.
34 This Court recently recognized that there are two types of
Booker error, constitutional and statutory. United
States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2005).
"The constitutional error is the use of extra-verdict
enhancements to reach a guidelines result that is binding on the
sentencing judge; the error is in the mandatory
nature of the guidelines once the guidelines range has been
determined." United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d
1291, 1301 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct.
2935, 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005). Meanwhile, "statutory
error occurs when the district court sentences a defendant
`under a mandatory guidelines scheme, even in the
absence of a Sixth Amendment enhancement violation.'" Mathenia,
409 F.3d at 1291 (citation omitted). York argues
that the district court committed both constitutional and
statutory Booker error.
35 Because York did not raise his Booker claims before the
district court, we review those claims only for plain
error. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298. In order to establish plain
error, York must show "`(1) error, (2) that is
plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.'" Id. (citation
omitted). "`If all three conditions are met, an
appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a
forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.'" Id. (citation omitted).
36 Turning first to York's claim of constitutional Booker error,
there is a substantial question as to whether the
facts supporting the enhancements in York's sentence were
extra-verdict or well within the facts necessarily
determined by the jury's verdict (i.e., whether the first prong
of the plain-error test is present). The
Indictment alleges that York: (1) was the leader of a
5,000-person religious organization (the enterprise in the
RICO count); (2) directed his followers, particularly the
children, to view him as a god-like or father figure;
(3) molested multiple minors, including several who were under
age twelve at the time the specific acts charged in
the Indictment took place; and (4) ordered minors to bring other
minors to him for unlawful sexual activity. The
jury convicted York of each count of the Indictment that alleges
such conduct, arguably establishing most, if not
all, facts necessary to support each enhancement imposed by the
district court.
37 In any event, the district court did commit statutory Booker
error by sentencing York under a mandatory
Guidelines scheme. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325,
1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, in order to
satisfy the second prong of the plain-error test, Booker error
need only be plain at the time of our appellate
consideration. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1299. Although York
has thus clearly shown statutory Booker error, and
even assuming arguendo that he has also shown constitutional
Booker error, we still affirm York's sentence because
he has failed to establish that either error affected his
substantial rights. "A defendant's substantial rights
are affected when there is a reasonable probability that the
district court would have imposed a different
sentence if the guidelines were not mandatory." United States v.
Rivas-Ruiz, No. 04-13056, 2005 WL 2334375, at *2
& n. 1, ___ F.3d ___, ___ & n. 1 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2005) (unpublished)(concluding
that the defendant failed to
meet his burden of showing that his substantial rights were
affected by Booker error because the record did not
indicate what the district court would have done if the
Guidelines were not mandatory); see also Rodriguez, 398
F.3d at 1299-1301 (concluding that where the effect of Booker
constitutional error "on the result in the district
court is uncertain or indeterminate... the appellant has not met
his burden of showing a reasonable probability
that the result would have been different but for the error").
38 Nothing in the transcript of York's sentencing hearing or
elsewhere in the record establishes a "reasonable
probability" that if the district court had sentenced York under
an advisory Guidelines scheme rather than a
mandatory Guidelines scheme, the district court would have
imposed a lesser sentence. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at
1301; see also United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1360
(11th Cir. 2005) ("Where `[w]e just don't know'
whether the defendant would have received a lesser sentence if
the guidelines had been advisory, the defendant has
not met his burden of showing prejudice.") (citation omitted).
If anything, the record shows that the district
court would not have imposed a lesser sentence because the
district court specifically determined that the
Guidelines range and York's 1,620 month sentence were
"appropriate" in light of the "nature of the crimes, the
victims involved, the length of the offense, and the totality of
the circumstances." Compare Rodriguez, 398 F.3d
at 1301 (third prong of plain-error test not met because record
provides no reason to believe that district judge
might have shortened defendant's sentence) with Shelton, 400
F.3d at 1332 (third prong of plain-error test met
where district court "during sentencing expressed several times
its view that the sentence required by the
Guidelines was too severe"; classified defendant's criminal
history category as "`unfortunate[]'"; sentenced
defendant to low end of Guidelines range; and classified final
sentence as "`more than appropriate'").
Accordingly, York's Booker claims fail because he has not met
his burden with regard to the third prong of the
plain-error test.
39 Finally, we address York's argument that the district court
improperly imposed sentencing enhancements based on
U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1's ("Section 2G1.1") cross-reference to U.S.S.G.
§ 2A3.1 ("Section 2A3.1") in the 2000 edition of
the Guidelines. York contends that the district court should
have used the 1993 edition of the Guidelines, because
his sex crimes should have been severed from his financial
crimes and his last sex crime concluded in 1993. York
argues that the 1993 edition of the Guidelines contains no
cross-reference to Section 2A3.1 and thus the district
court's use of the 2000 edition of the Guidelines resulted in a
more onerous sentence and violated the ex post
facto clause of the Constitution.14
40 "Generally, a convicted defendant's sentence is based on the
United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines
Manual `in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.'"
United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1403 (11th
Cir. 1997) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)). However, if the
Manual in effect on the date of sentencing violates
the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, then the district
court must use the Manual that was in effect on
the date that the crime was committed. Id. A sentencing scheme
violates the ex post facto clause "if it is enacted
after the crime was committed and before sentencing, and its
application results in a more onerous penalty." Id.
at 1403 n. 32. Further, if related crimes are committed in a
series, the date of the crime at the end of the
series governs the date of the Manual to be used.15 Id. at
1404-05.
41 We reject York's argument that his sentence violates the ex
post facto clause for two reasons. First, as
outlined above, the district court did not err in refusing to
sever the sex charges from the financial charges.
Thus, the district court properly refused to apply the 1993
edition of the Guidelines at York's sentencing because
York's crimes continued well past 1993. See Bailey, 123 F.3d at
1404-05 ("[R]elated offenses committed in a series
will be sentenced together under the ... Manual in effect at the
end of the series.").
42 Secondly, and in any event, there is no ex post facto
violation present here because both the 1993 and 2000
editions of the Guidelines contain applicable cross-references
to Section 2A3.1. Under the 2000 edition of the
Guidelines, Section 2G1.1 is the applicable guideline for
convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), which prohibits
the interstate transport of a minor with the intent to engage in
criminal sexual activity. Section 2G1.1 is
entitled "Promoting ... Prohibited Sexual Conduct" and states as
follows: "If the [18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)] offense
involved criminal sex abuse, attempted criminal sexual abuse, or
assault with intent to commit criminal sexual
abuse, apply § 2A3.1." U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1(c)(2) (2000) (emphasis
added).
43 Meanwhile, under the 1993 edition of the Guidelines, U.S.S.G.
§ 2G1.2 ("Section 2G1.2") is the applicable
guideline for convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Just as
Section 2G1.1 (2000) does, Section 2G1.2 (1993),
entitled "Transportation of a Minor for the Purpose of ...
Prohibited Sexual Conduct," provides that "[i]f the [18
U.S.C. § 2423(a)] offense involved criminal sexual abuse,
attempted criminal sexual abuse, or assault with intent
to commit criminal sexual abuse, apply § 2A3.1." U.S.S.G. §
2G1.2(c)(2) (1993) (emphasis added).
44 In other words, contrary to York's argument, under both
Section 2G1.1 (2000) and Section 2G1.2 (1993), there
are applicable cross-references to Section 2A3.1 if the
interstate transport offense involves criminal sexual
abuse. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1(c)(2) (2000) with U.S.S.G. §
2G1.2(c)(2) (1993). While the numbering of the sub-
sections (Section 2G1.1 and 2G1.2) is different, the substance
of the two provisions is the same for 18 U.S.C. §
2423(a) offenses.16
45 In his reply brief, York essentially concedes that point, but
he also argues (1) that the only way to arrive at
the same offense level that the district court reached here is
"by manipulating the [1993 edition of the]
Guidelines," and (2) that "his sentence would have been lower"
under the 1993 edition of the Guidelines. However,
York cites no case or record evidence in support of his argument
that his sentence would have been lower if it had
been calculated under the 1993 edition of the Guidelines, and as
discussed, our own review of the record does not
reflect any indication that the district court wished to impose
a different sentence. More to the point, because
the cross-reference to Section 2A3.1 is essentially identical in
both the 1993 and 2000 editions of the
Guidelines, the district court did not violate the ex post facto
clause by using the 2000 edition.
46 For all of the above reasons, we affirm York's convictions
and sentence.
47 AFFIRMED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1York is known by several names, including "Malakai Z. York,"
"Malachi York," "Isa Muhammad," "Isa Alihad Mahdi,"
and "Baba." For the sake of consistency, we refer to him as
"York."
2Initially, York and an alleged co-conspirator were indicted on
four counts arising out of their alleged
interstate transport of minors for unlawful sexual activity. The
original indictment was first superseded in order
to facilitate a guilty plea by York to one count of interstate
transport of a minor for unlawful sexual activity;
however, York's plea agreement was rejected by the district
court. York subsequently withdrew his guilty plea, and
the Indictment (on which York was ultimately tried) was returned
by the grand jury on November 21, 2003
3We discuss the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government and recognize that York vigorously denies
the government's version of eventsSee United States v. Garcia,
405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005).
4This victim, however, was undisputedlyunder the age of consent
at the time she was transported in interstate
commerce from Sullivan County, New York to Eatonton, Georgia.
5York also asserts that his post-trial counsel was ineffective
in that, without York's express consent, he
withdrew a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for new
trial, both of which were initially filed by
York's trial counsel. We conclude that York's ineffective
assistance of counsel claim is not properly before us at
this time because the record below is not sufficiently developed
to adequately address the merits of York's
argumentSee United States v. Camacho, 40 F.3d 349, 355 (11th
Cir. 1994), overruled in part on other grounds by
United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2001); see
also Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05,
123 S.Ct. 1690, 1694, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003) (holding that "in
most cases" it is preferable that a motion for
ineffective assistance of counsel be raised on collateral review
rather than on direct appeal). As such, we do not
reach this claim.
6The decision to permit rebuttal testimony lies in the sound
discretion of the trial courtUnited States v. Gold,
743 F.2d 800, 818 (11th Cir. 1984). A district court's denial of
a motion for mistrial is also reviewed for abuse
of discretion, as is the denial of a motion for continuance.
United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1352 (11th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Wright, 63 F.3d 1067, 1071 (11th
Cir. 1995); United States v. Verderame, 51 F.3d 249,
251 (11th Cir. 1995). We review a defendant's challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence de novo, taking all
reasonable inferences in the government's favor. United States
v. Rudisill, 187 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 1999).
7York's appeal, however, properly comes to this Court from the
United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia (Macon Division), where the Nuwaubians'
Eatonton, Georgia compound is located and the
Indictment was returned
8We review the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss an
indictment for abuse of discretion, although the
legal sufficiency of the allegations in an indictment is a
question of law that is reviewedde novo. United States
v. Waldon, 363 F.3d 1103, 1108 (11th Cir. 2004); United States
v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1204 (11th Cir.
2002).
9Moreover, inWaldon, we noted that "it does not appear that any
indictment has thus far been dismissed on the
ground that it was induced by pretrial publicity," and York
cites no such case. Waldon, 363 F.3d at 1109
(quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).
10This Court reviewsde novo whether the government's initial
joinder of criminal charges was proper under Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 8. We then review the district
court's subsequent denial of a motion to sever for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1241 (11th
Cir. 2002).
11InBonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding
precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions rendered prior to October
1, 1981.
12Although York argues in his briefs that he was improperly
sentenced under the November 2002 edition of the
Guidelines, it is clear from the PSI and the transcript of the
sentencing hearing that York was in fact sentenced
under the November 2000 edition of the GuidelinesSee PSI ¶ 69;
Tr. of Apr. 22, 2004 Sentencing Hr'g at 3.
Accordingly, we will construe York's ex post facto claim as a
claim that York was improperly sentenced under the
November 2000 edition of the Guidelines (hereinafter, the "2000"
edition of the Guidelines).
13Specifically, the PSI grouped relevant counts together
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1 and used the groups that
produced the highest total offense levels (those groups dealing
with the interstate transport of minors for sexual
activity) to compute York's base offense level at twenty-seven
14A defendant's claim that his sentence was imposed in violation
of theex post facto clause of the Constitution is
a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. United States
v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2000).
15"The use of either the Sentencing Guidelines Manual in effect
at sentencing or the one in effect when the crime
was committed is known as the `one book rule.'"Bailey, 123 F.3d
at 1403 (explaining in detail that under the one
book rule, only one edition of the Manual is to be applied in
sentencing a defendant). York was sentenced in 2004,
but no party contends that the 2004 Manual should have been
used. The 2000 Manual was used instead, and York's
only argument on appeal is that the district court should have
used the 1993 Manual. Thus we address only whether
the 1993 Manual should have been used.
16There is no Section 2G1.2 in the 2000 edition of the
Guidelines. However, in the 2000 edition of the Guidelines,
Section 2G1.1 is unquestionably the applicable guideline for
convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)See U.S.S.G.
app. A (2000); see also U.S.S.G. § 2G1.2 historical note (2000)
("Section 2G1.2 ...
|
