Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. James Edward Leak, Jr., A/K/A Shane
Citations: 59 F.3d 168; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23182; 1995 WL 378598Docket: 94-5395
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; June 27, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
James Edward Leak, Jr. appeals his 156-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride, violations of 21 U.S.C.A. Secs. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the sentence, addressing several key points raised by Leak. First, Leak contests the sufficiency of evidence for a conviction of "aiding and abetting," despite never being charged or convicted of that offense, as he was found guilty as a principal. The court deems this claim baseless. Second, Leak argues that his retrial after a granted motion for a new trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court clarifies that double jeopardy applies only if there was prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke the motion. Finding no evidence that the prosecution intentionally withheld information, the court concludes that the retrial did not constitute a double jeopardy violation. Third, Leak and his counsel claim the district court erred in imposing a sentence above the mandatory minimum of 151 months, arguing his limited criminal history warranted leniency. The court states that it cannot review the discretionary nature of the sentencing within the guideline range (151 to 188 months), especially since the imposed sentence was near the bottom of this range. The court denies Leak's motions for oral argument and for substitute counsel, stating that the case's facts and legal issues are sufficiently clear. It also instructs that counsel must inform Leak of his right to petition the Supreme Court if he wishes to pursue further review, emphasizing that counsel can withdraw if a petition is deemed frivolous. The appeal is ultimately affirmed.