Legal Case Summary

United States v. Brandon Ingram


Date Argued: Thu Dec 12 2013
Case Number: 14-20450
Docket Number: 2591336
Judges:William B. Traxler, Jr., Albert Diaz, Henry F. Floyd
Duration: 17 minutes
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Summary

**Case Summary: United States v. Brandon Ingram** **Docket Number:** 2591336 **Court:** [Insert Court Name, e.g., United States District Court for the [District Name]] **Date:** [Insert Date of the Case] **Parties Involved:** - **Plaintiff:** United States of America - **Defendant:** Brandon Ingram **Background:** Brandon Ingram was charged with [insert specific charges, e.g., drug trafficking, firearm offenses, etc.], which arose from incidents occurring on [insert relevant date or dates]. The government alleges that Ingram engaged in [provide a brief description of the alleged criminal activities]. **Facts:** - The case originated when [briefly describe how law enforcement became involved, e.g., a traffic stop, undercover operation, etc.]. - Evidence against Ingram included [describe types of evidence presented, such as surveillance footage, witness testimony, physical evidence, etc.]. - Following his arrest, Ingram [mention any significant actions taken by Ingram, such as statements made to law enforcement or participation in plea bargaining]. **Legal Issues:** The primary legal issues in this case include: - Whether the evidence obtained was lawful and admissible in court. - [Mention any relevant constitutional or statutory issues, e.g., Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights]. - [Any specific legal tests or standards applicable to the charges brought against Ingram]. **Arguments:** - The prosecution argued that Ingram knowingly engaged in illegal activities and that the evidence collected was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. - The defense countered by [describe the main arguments of the defense, such as challenging the legality of evidence, arguing lack of intent or knowledge, etc.]. **Court Ruling:** [Insert the court’s decision, e.g., guilty, not guilty, or any plea agreement reached]. The court’s ruling was based on [mention rationale behind the decision, including any legal standards or precedents that influenced the outcome]. **Outcome:** Brandon Ingram was [summarize the outcome, including any sentences, fines, or probation terms ordered by the court]. The case may also include [mention any potential appeals or ongoing legal issues]. **Significance:** The outcome of this case is significant because [explain the potential implications for future cases, law enforcement practices, community impact, etc.]. **Conclusion:** United States v. Brandon Ingram serves as a pertinent example of [highlight any larger themes within the case, such as the enforcement of specific laws, the impact of evidence admissibility, etc.].

United States v. Brandon Ingram


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

Great. Good morning, DGU, and may it please the Court. I'm Walter Perry, I'm Warrenone, is Wally Perrymore from the Eastern District of New York, I'm pleased to be here. I did not try this case in the case below. I did not handle the case. I'm just here on the peel

. I appreciate your— Thank you very much. Taken the appointments. My pleasure to help the Court. The honor of this case is, in somebody might say, he prepared a brief with a shotgun of issues, and when you're doing a case that you did not try, it's so hard to evaluate what was important. And so in this case, there are five separate issues that go along with the entire range of the case, pre-trial motions, four or four of the issues, rule 29 issues, and then there are issue about sentencing and an issue about the ineffective assistance of counsel

. I would like to talk briefly first about the issue about sentencing and the procedural issue that was raised in the last argument to the Court. This is one of those situations where in federal court, unlike most places, particularly in our district, we have the fact finder in a trial, the jury with standard beyond a reasonable doubt, and they return a verdict that we got 280 grams of cocaine base and the minimum of mandatory kicks in. And then later, after the pre-centred report is prepared, we find that there are, is not 280 grams of cocaine base, but there are 275.31 grams of cocaine base. And so we got these two different fact finding settings, one to destination for verdict, the other to destination for sentencing, going to a district court judge

. And in the district court, judges sentencing hearing, he incorporated the findings, even though they have been ejected to, and they're preserved in the adenem to the pre-centred report by the attorney and district court. We do have the objection about, hey, what's going on here? We got the pre-centred writer, who's got the documentation provided to him by the government, and then we got the jury verdict, and we have a conflict about whether we've met the minimum threshold here in this case. And that raises the issue, of course, we're in a preponderant standard there, it's a question about it, sentencing, no question about that at all. How does one resolve that issue when the court court blotched just at the end of its up sentencing, in this case, incorporated a pre-centred report that had 275.31 grams of cocaine, less than the amount that is required for a conviction of 280 in the minimum amount to where we've 10 years to life

. And so that is an issue judge that I argued and I'm trying to present to the court, is the juxtaposition of the rule 29 and the final argument in the court, and it's the issue before this court that my client was most concerned about and communication with him. And I'd ask the court to very carefully consider that because if you take it and you personalize the situation, you say you got a guy sitting in a jail in the East Newscrew North Carolina waiting to be sentenced, he gets a pre-centred report and the pre-centred report contains a figure in it which is not consistent with the jury verdict, it raises issues there about what can the court do in terms of sentencing, what is under booker and all the cases that come after that and cases in our circuit after that, it raises the issue about what is the appropriate sentence. Can the court go to the minimum mandatory and follow the verdict or is the court required to do something different in terms of sentencing? And that's the situation that's here and that's the reason that the appellant has asked for a remand to the district court to be resentanced because of that error. And that's the first major issue in this case about the sentence in this case, at the back of this case, for end of it. The other issue judge is one which is very dear to my heart and after being a lawyer for 37 years and spending my life in the courtrooms of the state and with Carolina and the federal court in Eastern District

. And that is the effect of assistance of counsel. And I've seen, as you can imagine, all different types of lawyers and I've seen all different types that people have a good day and a bad day, but I've never seen in 37 years of practice when there are admissions made by defendant in a very serious criminal case where he's looking at a life sentence, where the counsel did not in pretrial practice as required by our rules, go and contest the admissibility of statements, contest whether the statements, and we don't even know it from the record, we know nothing from the record about when, where, any Miranda rights were given. We believe they were given twice, or we have nothing in the record to help us or to guide us about when this happened. And that famous exception to Miranda about spontaneous statements, we don't know whether they were spontaneous statements or not. And then we see in the record where when this first statement comes in through the first detective detective, Wine Heart, counsel objects not because of Miranda or a constitutional grounds, he objects because of relevance

. Well, a statement of admission is the most powerful evidence in criminal court in this country. It leads to most of the convictions by pleas that we have. People make confessions. It's just a powerful life. And it's a part of the way people raise and it's a part of our instinct

. Mr. Paramore, you just, I appreciate that argument, but you started off that portion of the argument by saying that we don't know a lot of the factual predicates to decide whether, first of all, whether counsel was ineffective in second, if he was, whether there was any prejudice. So it seems a little bit premature to be considering this issue here today. I realize that. And I recognize the court has taught us that it is the alternative collateral method under 2255, where we talk about ineffective assistance counsel

. And that is the appropriate means for doing that in most situations. But in this case, and there are layers of evidence, and there's no reason to contest that. There are three people accomplices, if you don't call them that, or people may deals with the government to testify, there's other evidence of other types in this case. But the important thing here honors this. The strongest evidence in every criminal case is if you have made a statement against you

. And in this case, where the statements are, I'm a quarter man, I'm cell cocaine, and completely undergird the government's case against the appellate. There should have been pre-trial challenges to this by Council. We should have been done. If we accept your argument, then we effectively have to adopt a rule that says, you must in every case, regardless of the circumstances, file a pre-trial motion to challenge a alleged confession. Judge, I do not say that because in most cases, or please, I mean, we try to try that many cases now like we did, and it's even gotten slimmer and slower

. But in a case of this nature, when the defendant, when you can do a prediction on guidelines, early on, which Council do, and you talk to your department about that early on, you have a responsibility to go into every area of a case and investigate it. In some situations you may see, a complete Miranda, you may see a video, you may say, hey, and you short to your client, I can't beat that. So, are you saying that you believe we should adopt a rule that you have to challenge every confidant? No, I do not believe you should adopt. So there might be circumstances. There are some circumstances where it's videoed, and it is very clear, and there are multiple witnesses to waiver, and your client does not deny that he was, he did that, then there's no reason to say, hey, you got to file a motion in every case. But, in this case, there's nothing in the record that you have and that I have, and the government has, it really tells us what happened. That's right. Any, we can't decide it. Well, I disagree with you about that, because you could send it back, the case just for the purpose of having some type of someone, another council to meet with the defendant, and file motions, or review the case. I, it's just that, Judge, I'm, you know, this kid's 32, he's got 360 months to serve, the government's got to pay all that money for him to be incarcerated for all that time, and in that situation, and that specific situation, there should be something on this record to show, you know, why those statements could be admitted into evidence, and there's nothing

. But, in this case, there's nothing in the record that you have and that I have, and the government has, it really tells us what happened. That's right. Any, we can't decide it. Well, I disagree with you about that, because you could send it back, the case just for the purpose of having some type of someone, another council to meet with the defendant, and file motions, or review the case. I, it's just that, Judge, I'm, you know, this kid's 32, he's got 360 months to serve, the government's got to pay all that money for him to be incarcerated for all that time, and in that situation, and that specific situation, there should be something on this record to show, you know, why those statements could be admitted into evidence, and there's nothing. I know, but we're only gonna grant relief on that basis of the record as it stands, it's clear. He wants to hear anyone's testimony, that's what 22, I understand what 22, 55 does, Judge, and I appreciate that. Because the other issue to me, and there's a concern is, I'm gonna say, after getting beat up, and probably getting the pre-centred report, and getting scared, and seeing what he's gonna have, he files a pro-say motion for relief, hey, Judge, I need a new lawyer, okay. I don't know that the district court made sufficient findings about whether there was a conflict of interest where council and the defendant could not work together anymore. I can tell the court haven't represented thousands of defendants in all these years, that the relationship you have with the client is the most sensitive relationship

. I know, but we're only gonna grant relief on that basis of the record as it stands, it's clear. He wants to hear anyone's testimony, that's what 22, I understand what 22, 55 does, Judge, and I appreciate that. Because the other issue to me, and there's a concern is, I'm gonna say, after getting beat up, and probably getting the pre-centred report, and getting scared, and seeing what he's gonna have, he files a pro-say motion for relief, hey, Judge, I need a new lawyer, okay. I don't know that the district court made sufficient findings about whether there was a conflict of interest where council and the defendant could not work together anymore. I can tell the court haven't represented thousands of defendants in all these years, that the relationship you have with the client is the most sensitive relationship. I told somebody it's like a marriage, it goes up, it goes down, or good days, or bad days, particularly when you talk about these serious things, but the most important thing is that it cannot be a conflict where there's no communication, and the defendant does not trust his lawyer and respect him. If he cannot do that, then it is impossible for the criminal justice system to work. I always, and other council that I work with, we always in the district court file motions to withdrawal, when we feel like there is a communication problem, or other ethical issues that develop, consistent with rules of professional conduct and North Carolina, but we always do that, and we do it, and we think about it, we talk to other lawyers about it, should I file this motion, it's not something that's done frivolously in a series, but here judge, in this specific situation, this court did not go into a deep enough examination of the conflict, what is the conflict? It's not developed, it's not indirect. But didn't he ask him what his problem was? He did ask him what his problem was, and I don't know that, and he explained it, but he did not, I don't know that council, when he was asked about it, explained it, as carefully as it should have been explained about, we don't have a conflict, we can work together, it's just done by the theory verdict, and the situation concerning the pre-central court, that would have been a much better response. But judge, those are the issues in this case, which are that run together that are important in this case, and affect this young man and his rights to a fair trial

. I told somebody it's like a marriage, it goes up, it goes down, or good days, or bad days, particularly when you talk about these serious things, but the most important thing is that it cannot be a conflict where there's no communication, and the defendant does not trust his lawyer and respect him. If he cannot do that, then it is impossible for the criminal justice system to work. I always, and other council that I work with, we always in the district court file motions to withdrawal, when we feel like there is a communication problem, or other ethical issues that develop, consistent with rules of professional conduct and North Carolina, but we always do that, and we do it, and we think about it, we talk to other lawyers about it, should I file this motion, it's not something that's done frivolously in a series, but here judge, in this specific situation, this court did not go into a deep enough examination of the conflict, what is the conflict? It's not developed, it's not indirect. But didn't he ask him what his problem was? He did ask him what his problem was, and I don't know that, and he explained it, but he did not, I don't know that council, when he was asked about it, explained it, as carefully as it should have been explained about, we don't have a conflict, we can work together, it's just done by the theory verdict, and the situation concerning the pre-central court, that would have been a much better response. But judge, those are the issues in this case, which are that run together that are important in this case, and affect this young man and his rights to a fair trial. There are, and I have to admit, there are different layers of evidence in this case, and the government is correct about that, and there were undercover buys, and there were control buys with the informant, there were over four or four B objections, there was a looting to a speed of rest, and there was other evidence that, you know, substantiating, corroborated, the government's case, that's true, and that was battled out, and I raised those issues to the court, because I had ethical responsibility to do so. But the most important thing to me, Judge, and Judge is what's striking, so striking, is the difference between the 280 grams that was found by the jury, and the 275 found by the district court at Synancing, which is a concern of my client, and then the situation regarding whether his counselor should have done more about affecting, and litigating the motions, the admissions that came in, and then the relationship between the two, whether it was fractured to the point that it was impossible, impossible for them to work together. And Judge, as those were the showing, the showing I'd make to the court at this point, but it's a very serious case with my client, he's a young man, he's looking at serving close to 360 months in prison, and did he receive a fair shake in the district court? I'm not sure, when I'm not sure, I have a duty to bring it to the court. Thank you very much, very much. Mr

. There are, and I have to admit, there are different layers of evidence in this case, and the government is correct about that, and there were undercover buys, and there were control buys with the informant, there were over four or four B objections, there was a looting to a speed of rest, and there was other evidence that, you know, substantiating, corroborated, the government's case, that's true, and that was battled out, and I raised those issues to the court, because I had ethical responsibility to do so. But the most important thing to me, Judge, and Judge is what's striking, so striking, is the difference between the 280 grams that was found by the jury, and the 275 found by the district court at Synancing, which is a concern of my client, and then the situation regarding whether his counselor should have done more about affecting, and litigating the motions, the admissions that came in, and then the relationship between the two, whether it was fractured to the point that it was impossible, impossible for them to work together. And Judge, as those were the showing, the showing I'd make to the court at this point, but it's a very serious case with my client, he's a young man, he's looking at serving close to 360 months in prison, and did he receive a fair shake in the district court? I'm not sure, when I'm not sure, I have a duty to bring it to the court. Thank you very much, very much. Mr. Rogers. Good morning, ma'am. Please the court. My name is Joshua Rogers, and I represent the United States. I'll just briefly address some of the points to Vince Council's made this morning, with respect to his argument that the district court did not do an adequate inquiry, that's not actually something he argued in his brief

. Rogers. Good morning, ma'am. Please the court. My name is Joshua Rogers, and I represent the United States. I'll just briefly address some of the points to Vince Council's made this morning, with respect to his argument that the district court did not do an adequate inquiry, that's not actually something he argued in his brief. In his brief, he said there was a conflict of interest that was based on a total lack of communication. When we look at the hearing, what's clear is the one thing that was definitely going on between the attorney and client is communicating. We know that the defense attorney was at the probation interview, he told his client he was going to be stepping down at sentencing, defendant offered suggestions for closing, he took them, the court rejected them, and defense counsel reviewed the PSR and prepared objections after consulting with the defendant. When we're looking at the standard review of abusive discretion in the district court, did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was not a breakdown in communication. In fact, there was plenty of communication obviously going on

. In his brief, he said there was a conflict of interest that was based on a total lack of communication. When we look at the hearing, what's clear is the one thing that was definitely going on between the attorney and client is communicating. We know that the defense attorney was at the probation interview, he told his client he was going to be stepping down at sentencing, defendant offered suggestions for closing, he took them, the court rejected them, and defense counsel reviewed the PSR and prepared objections after consulting with the defendant. When we're looking at the standard review of abusive discretion in the district court, did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was not a breakdown in communication. In fact, there was plenty of communication obviously going on. With respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Pellet counsel said that there are circumstances where it's very clear that there's no reason to say we need to file a motion, and there's nothing in the record to show this is one of those cases. This is essentially a concession that defendant hasn't conclusively established in effect of assistance, and therefore that argument must fail. With regard to the PSR, drug weight different, being different than what the jury found, beyond this court has stated, that beyond establishing the maximum sentence, the jury's drug quantity determination doesn't place a constraint on a district court. There are sometimes differences. This is unusual where it actually went down, but it wasn't as if that nullified the jury's verdict

. With respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Pellet counsel said that there are circumstances where it's very clear that there's no reason to say we need to file a motion, and there's nothing in the record to show this is one of those cases. This is essentially a concession that defendant hasn't conclusively established in effect of assistance, and therefore that argument must fail. With regard to the PSR, drug weight different, being different than what the jury found, beyond this court has stated, that beyond establishing the maximum sentence, the jury's drug quantity determination doesn't place a constraint on a district court. There are sometimes differences. This is unusual where it actually went down, but it wasn't as if that nullified the jury's verdict. Actually, the test was only trial, there was more than 280. Correct. 292. 296. And so simply because it sentencing, the PSR happened to find an amount a little bit lower than that doesn't nullify the jury's verdict

. Actually, the test was only trial, there was more than 280. Correct. 292. 296. And so simply because it sentencing, the PSR happened to find an amount a little bit lower than that doesn't nullify the jury's verdict. Outside of those responses to a Pellet counsel's argument here this morning, the government will rest on its briefs unless the court has any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mayor Mourney, you'd like to add and reply

. I appreciate again your undertaking representation of Mr. Ingram. I'll ask the clerk to adjourn court, and then we'll come down and greet counsel