Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 11-5089
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00145-WMN-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
A
jury
convicted
Mark
Lomax
of
three
counts
of
18
to
U.S.C.
240
challenging
sentence.
months
the
convictions,
district
1951
two
court,
(2006).
imprisonment.
sufficiency
of
supplemental
and
The
the
Lomax
the
jury
district
court
sentenced
timely
appealed,
evidence
instructions
procedural
supporting
given
reasonableness
by
of
his
the
his
We are obliged
most
favorable
to
the
prosecution,
is
supported
by
substantial evidence.
United States
United
Reversal
110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Burks v. United
States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)).
The Hobbs Act makes it a crime to commit robbery or
extortion to obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement
of any commodity in commerce.
Williams,
reviewed
the
342
F.3d
record
350,
and
353
(4th
conclude
Cir.
that
United States
2003).
the
We
have
evidence
was
United
States v. Najjar, 300 F.3d 466, 486 n.8 (4th Cir. 2002) (a panel
of this court cannot overrule a decision of a prior panel).
Lomax next asserts that the district court erred in
giving two supplemental instructions to the jury.
The initial
to
of
extortion
the
statute
and
the
removed.
3
potential
After
punishment
the
jury
for
twice
times.
Lomax
argues
that
these
two
supplemental
necessity,
extent,
and
character
of
any
219
citation
n.2
(4th
Cir.
omitted).
2005)
We
(internal
review
the
quotation
decision
to
marks
and
give
an
507
F.3d
at
244.
When
evaluating
the
adequacy
of
Lomax
unreasonable.
deferential
also
challenges
his
sentence
as
procedurally
standard.
Gall
v.
United
A sentence is procedurally
marks
sentence
omitted).
While
every
requires
an
adequate
Cir. 2010).
Lomax
argues
that
due
to
his
turbulent
childhood,
an
adequate
explanation
for
its
refusal.
The
and
adequate
to
permit
meaningful
appellate
review.
court
considered
the
parties
5
arguments,
The
including
Lomaxs
contention
that
his
childhood,
history
of
substance
It explained
that Lomaxs crimes were a danger to the community and that his
medical status did not warrant a departure from the suggested
Guidelines range.
that
the
district
court
provided
an
adequate
explanation
of
affirm
Lomaxs
convictions
and
contentions
the
we
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED