United States v. Orange

21 F.4th 162

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

v.Xavier Jamaal ORANGE, Appellant

No. 20-3013

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued September 14, 2021

Decided December 28, 2021

Lisa B. Wright, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender. Tony Axam, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, entered an appearance.

Bryan H. Han, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Chrisellen R. Kolb and Suzanne Grealy Curt, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Before: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.

Rao, Circuit Judge:

Xavier Orange pleaded guilty to two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits certain felons from possessing firearms, and was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment. Orange argues on appeal that his attorney was ineffective at his sentencing hearing, depriving him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The record from the hearing, however, makes clear that irrespective of any alleged deficiencies in representation, the district court would have imposed the same sentence. Because Orange has not demonstrated prejudice, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.

I.

Early one morning, Orange was riding in the back seat of a car in Northeast Washington, D.C. The car was stopped by the United States Park Police, who noticed Orange had an open bottle of liquor in his lap. After arresting Orange, the Park Police discovered a loaded Sig Sauer pistol in his pocket. Because Orange had previously been convicted in the District of Columbia of attempted assault with a dangerous weapon and of attempted robbery, it was unlawful for him to possess a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ; see D.C. CODE §§ 22-1803, 23-1331(4) (2001). A grand jury charged him with violating Section 922(g)(1).

One week after his arrest, Park Police officers went to an apartment they believed was Orange's. They found a loaded .45 caliber Glock pistol in the kitchen. In the bedroom, they discovered a .45 caliber extended magazine, alongside four other handgun magazines, over a hundred rounds of ammunition, and drug paraphernalia. Next to the magazines and ammunition, they also found court documents in Orange's name and mail addressed to him. There was no indication that anyone else lived in the apartment. After forensic testing identified Orange's DNA on the Glock, he was charged with a second violation of Section 922(g)(1).

Orange pleaded guilty, admitting possession of both the Sig Sauer and Glock pistols. At the time of his guilty plea, the government calculated that the appropriate sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines was 21 to 27 months of imprisonment. In exchange for Orange's guilty plea, the prosecution agreed to request the shortest sentence within that range and to request that he be permitted to serve his sentences concurrently. Orange acknowledged, however, that the plea agreement was "not binding on the Probation Office or the Court" and that the probation officer was free to request, and the court was free to assess, a harsher sentence. Orange waived the right to appeal his sentence but retained the right to bring ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Unfortunately for Orange, his probation officer proposed a higher Guidelines range than the government had calculated. First, according to the presentence report ("PSR"), the Sig Sauer discovered in Orange's pocket at the traffic stop had an obliterated serial number, resulting in a four level enhancement. Second, the PSR noted that Orange's .45 caliber Glock was "capable of accepting [the] large capacity magazine" discovered in the bedroom, which increased his base offense level. These adjustments resulted in a recommended sentence of 57 to 71 months. Orange objected, insisting he had never admitted that the Sig Sauer's serial number was obliterated or that he possessed a large capacity magazine that his Glock could accept. The government agreed with Orange that the proper Guidelines recommendation remained 21 to 27 months.

At a pre-sentencing conference, the district court sua sponte flagged another issue. Relying on United States v. Brown , 892 F.3d 385 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (per curiam), the court asked the parties to determine whether Orange's prior conviction for attempted assault with a dangerous weapon was a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines.

At Orange's sentencing, the court quickly disposed of two of the three outstanding issues. First, after reviewing the evidence, his attorney and the prosecution agreed the serial number on his Sig Sauer was not obliterated. Second, Orange's attorney conceded that attempted assault with a dangerous weapon was a crime of violence under the Guidelines.

The parties disputed the PSR's extended magazine recommendation. Orange insisted that the apartment the officers searched was not his; the .45 caliber extended magazine discovered in the bedroom was not his; and, even if it were, it had not been in "close proximity" to the .45 caliber Glock found in the kitchen, as required by the Guidelines. Based on the testimony of the officer who searched the apartment, the district court determined that "[b]y far, the most plausible conclusion" was that Orange owned the extended .45 caliber magazine. After all, it was located in a small apartment, next to his mail and court documents, and one room away from a .45 caliber handgun with his DNA on it. The court further found that Orange's extended magazine was in "close proximity" to his Glock and increased his offense level accordingly.

These findings placed Orange's recommended sentence at 46 to 57 months of imprisonment. After considering the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) —including the seriousness of Orange's offense, his prior gun-related convictions, and the need to protect the public—the court handed down two 57 month sentences, to be served concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. The court stipulated that "if I'm wrong about the guideline range, I would still vary upwards to give you this sentence." Orange timely appealed, claiming his attorney was ineffective at sentencing.

II.

Orange argues his attorney made two errors at sentencing. First, he contends his attorney should have realized that, as a matter of law, a conviction in the District of Columbia for attempted assault with a dangerous weapon is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. Second, he maintains that the testifying officer never suggested the .45 caliber Glock was "capable of accepting" the extended .45 caliber magazine, and that no other evidence adduced at sentencing suggested the magazine fit the gun. An effective attorney, Orange argues, would not have conceded that attempted assault with a dangerous weapon was a crime of violence and would have recognized that the extended magazine finding lacked evidentiary support.

To succeed on his ineffective assistance claim, Orange must demonstrate (1) that his attorney's conduct at sentencing "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," and (2) "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Although we often remand "colorable" ineffective assistance claims raised on direct appeal "for further factual development," a remand is unnecessary if "the record clearly shows that the defendant was not prejudiced." United States v. Sitzmann , 893 F.3d 811, 831–32 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Marshall , 946 F.3d 591, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2020). In this case, we need not consider the merits of Orange's deficient performance allegations, because the record clearly shows that he did not suffer prejudice, i.e., a "reasonable probability ... that [his] prison term would not have been as long" if his attorney had represented him effectively. United States v. Murray , 897 F.3d 298, 312 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Eli , 379 F.3d 1016, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Orange contends he was prejudiced because, if his attorney had been competent, the court would have arrived at a Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months; instead, it found that the proper range was 46 to 57 months. The difference between the two, he argues, suggests a reasonable probability of a more lenient sentence.

The Supreme Court has explained that in "most cases" when a defendant shows that, but for his attorney's deficient performance, the court would have selected a lower Guidelines range, he will have "demonstrated ...