Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mosby v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division

April 10, 2017

LATWON TYRONE MOSBY, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         Guilty-plea convicted as a felon-in-possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), Latwon Mosby seeks 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. Doc. 68 & 69;[1] see also docs. 1 (indictment); 46 (plea agreement); 47 (judgment ordering 95 months' imprisonment). The Government opposes. Doc. 71.

         I. BACKGROUND

         As set forth by the Eleventh Circuit, on appeal from his conviction:

On March 28, 2014, [Officers] Tucker and Samatis, both members of the Savannah-Chatham Metro Police Department, were patrolling Westlake Apartments. Westlake is located in a high-crime area of Savannah and has a history of problems with loitering and drug-related activity. In the course of their patrol, Tucker and Samatis spotted Mosby walking along a second floor hallway. As Mosby descended to the first floor, Tucker and Samatis approached him. Tucker asked Mosby if he lived at Westlake. When Mosby answered yes, Tucker asked which apartment Mosby lived in. Mosby hesitated and looked around, which the officers took as a sign that he was trying to fabricate a credible answer. Tucker then asked Mosby for identification proving he lived at Westlake, at which point Mosby attempted to flee. Samatis grabbed Mosby to prevent him from fleeing. While Samatis grappled with Mosby, Tucker noticed Mosby reaching for a gun in his pants. After a struggle, the officers subdued and arrested Mosby.

United States v. Mosby, 630 F.App'x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2015). Mosby was indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon. Doc. 1. Upon the advice of counsel, movant conditionally pled guilty, securing a maximum sentence of ten years. Docs. 42 & 46 (reserving the right to seek appellate review of the denial of his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unconstitutional seizure); see also Presentence Investigative Report (PSR) at ¶ 57 (advising, based on his total offense level of 23 and criminal history category of V, a guideline imprisonment range of 84 to 105 months).

         Mosby appealed and lost:

Mosby makes three arguments, all unavailing, that Tucker and Samatis violated his Fourth Amendment rights. First, he argues that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and question him at the bottom of the stairs. Mosby has forfeited this argument, however, because he acknowledged in his motion to suppress that the officers' initial approach and questioning was the type of consensual police-citizen encounter that does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. . . .
Mosby's second argument is that the district court incorrectly found that: (1) his answers to the officers' questions had been evasive; (2) he had attempted to flee; and (3) Westlake was a high crime area. . . . None of the findings Mosby challenges warrants reversal because each was supported by the officers' testimony at the hearing. . . . There was thus substantial evidence in the record to support the district court's factual findings on all three of the facts Mosby challenges, especially since we give "particular deference to credibility determinations of a fact-finder who had the opportunity to see live testimony." United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1009 (11th Cir. 2012) (alteration omitted).
Based on a few minor inconsistencies in the officers' testimony and police reports, Mosby argues that the district court should not have credited the officers' testimony. The inconsistencies to which Mosby adverts, however, are all so trivial as to be inconsequential. . . . Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in crediting Tucker's and Samatis' accounts of the encounter.
Mosby's final argument is that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize him as he was attempting to get away from them, but the events preceding Samatis' grabbing Mosby belie that contention. First, as both officers testified, Westlake is a high-crime area. That a stop occurred in a high-crime area is a "relevant contextual consideration[ J" for purposes of establishing reasonable suspicion. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000). The record also contained evidence that Mosby responded to the officers' questions in a way that indicated he was lying or at least being evasive. "[E]vasive, nervous or apprehensive conduct in response to [officers'] attention[ ] has many times been noted as a significant factor in the creation of reasonable suspicion." United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486, 1497 (11th Cir. 1985). Third, and most obviously, Mosby attempted to flee from the officers. Flight from officers, particularly in a high-crime area, supports reasonable suspicion. United States v. Gordon, 231 F.3d 750, 757 (11th Cir.2000). The officers thus had ample bases for reasonably suspecting that Mosby was engaged in criminal activity and, therefore, for detaining him.

Mosby, 630 F.App'x at 963-64.

         II. ANALYSIS

         Mosby presents two grounds for relief: (1) counsel deficiently prepared and argued his suppression motion, and (2) after Johnson, his prior conviction for Georgia aggravated assault no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" to increase his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. Doc. 347. Both claims are meritless.

         A. Ineffective ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.