United States v. Klyne Milton McMahan Jr., A/K/A John White, A/K/A Mark West, A/K/A John West, A/K/A Mark Sears, A/K/A Chris Sears, A/K/A John Mark McQuinn A/K/A Mark King, A/K/A Mark Kellam, A/K/A Hughes Davies, A/K/A M.J. Masterson, A/K/A Mark Gardner, A/K/A Mark McMahan A/K/A Mac McMahan A/K/A Belton McMahan A/K/A Danny Burns, A/K/A A.G. Ashburn, United States of America v. Klyne Milton McMahan Jr., A/K/A John White, A/K/A Mark West, A/K/A John West, A/K/A Mark Sears, A/K/A Chris Sears, A/K/A John Mark McQuinn A/K/A Mark King, A/K/A Mark Kellam, A/K/A Hughes Davies, A/K/A M.J. Masterson, A/K/A Mark Gardner, A/K/A Mark McMahan A/K/A Mac McMahan A/K/A Belton McMahan A/K/A Danny Burns, A/K/A A.G. Ashburn

Citation: 53 F.3d 329Docket: 94-5385

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; May 1, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Klyne McMahan, referred to by multiple aliases, initially pled guilty in 1990 to possession of marijuana under a plea agreement that involved cooperation with the government and the dismissal of other charges. However, after the government determined he breached this agreement by failing to fully disclose information about his drug operations and assets during debriefings, he was reindicted on multiple charges, including drug conspiracy and money laundering. McMahan was ultimately sentenced to a total of 292 months for these offenses. He appealed both the district court's finding of breach and his sentence, but the court affirmed the decision, citing no errors in the proceedings. The case involved significant evidence from DEA operations, including the seizure of drugs and related materials from McMahan's properties, and his ongoing lack of full transparency about co-conspirators and assets during cooperation attempts.

On August 25, 1993, a district court hearing was held to determine if McMahan breached his plea agreement, allowing the government to proceed with reinstated charges. Testimony from Special Agent McGoldrick revealed that McMahan's financial records included transactions with individuals involved in drug activities, which McMahan denied. Fred West, known as 'Navy', confirmed that he and another individual helped McMahan distribute marijuana. The court found McMahan dishonest, concluding he breached the agreement. Following this, McMahan engaged in plea negotiations, ultimately pleading guilty to new charges. At sentencing on January 21, 1994, the court enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice and denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total sentence of 292 months for drug conspiracy and related offenses, all to run concurrently.

McMahan contested the sufficiency of evidence supporting the breach finding, arguing that the court erred by considering his failure to disclose certain assets, which had previously been deemed insufficient for enhancing his prior sentence. He claimed the principle of collateral estoppel should apply, preventing the use of the same evidence to establish a breach. However, the court clarified that its breach conclusion was based solely on McMahan's concealment of his associates' involvement in drug activities, constituting a substantial breach.

Additionally, McMahan argued against the obstruction of justice enhancement and the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility during sentencing. The court's enhancement was based on McMahan's failure to disclose information, which was deemed willful based on testimonies indicating his close relationships with the involved individuals and his continuous denial of their drug activities. The court's findings regarding willful concealment were not considered clearly erroneous.

McMahan contends that his failure to disclose his associates' activities should not support an obstruction of justice enhancement since he was already punished through reindictment, which he argues violates the intent of the Sentencing Guidelines. He cites Application Note 6 to USSG Sec. 3C1.1, claiming it prohibits an obstruction enhancement when obstruction is an element of the underlying crime. However, the court clarifies that obstruction is not an element of the charges against McMahan, and his breach of the plea agreement did not constitute a criminal sanction but rather reverted him to his pre-guilty plea status. Additionally, other courts have upheld the use of conduct leading to a plea agreement breach to support obstruction enhancements, affirming the district court's two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.

Regarding McMahan's request for a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility, the court reviews for clear error. McMahan argues that his apology, cooperation, guilty plea, and rehabilitation warranted a reduction. However, his misrepresentations during debriefings indicate a lack of acceptance of responsibility, as supported by precedent. Consequently, the court affirms the denial of the reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

The court also notes that the government argues McMahan waived his right to appeal the breach finding by pleading guilty unconditionally after reindictment. While a guilty plea admits factual guilt and waives related constitutional violations, it does not waive jurisdictional issues. The court, having affirmed the breach finding, finds it unnecessary to address the waiver argument. Additionally, McMahan's pro se brief raises issues that were largely unaddressed in the district court, with most found to lack merit. The court grants his motion to file the brief but dismisses the issues raised.