USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4437

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHAIKIM REYNOLDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:22-cr-00039-EWH-DEM-1)

Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: November 5, 2024

Before RUSHING, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sicilia C. Englert, LAW OFFICE OF SICILIA C. ENGLERT, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Julie D. Podlesni, Assistant United States Attorney, D. Mack Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted Chaikim Reynolds of Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and

abetting, in violation of

, 1951(a); and brandishing a firearm in furtherance

of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of

,

924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Reynolds to 156 months’ imprisonment

followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, Reynolds argues that the district

court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and in applying an enhancement under the

Sentencing Guidelines for causing permanent injury in the course of attempting to avoid

responsibility for the robbery. Finding no error, we affirm.

First, Reynolds asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

He contends the jury was confused about what evidence it could consider for his duress

defense, and challenges the district court’s failure to give a supplemental clarifying

instruction after the jury asked a question about the evidence it could consider. With

respect to Reynolds’ claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, we review that claim for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Ali,

(4th Cir. 2021). “A court should exercise its

discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, and it should do so only when the evidence weighs

heavily against the verdict.” United States v. Chong Lam,

(4th Cir.

2012) (cleaned up). However, to the extent that Reynolds asserts that the district court

erred in responding to the jury’s question, as Reynolds failed to object to the court’s

response, we review this claim only for plain error. United States v. Gillespie,

(4th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Perry,

, 322 & n.10 (4th

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 5

Cir. 2003) (reviewing defendant’s challenge to denial of motion for new trial for abuse of

discretion, but noting that any claim that the jury instructions or verdict sheet was erroneous

would be reviewed for plain error because defendant did not challenge them below). Under

the plain error standard, a defendant must demonstrate (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that

affects the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that “the error seriously affects the

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Gillespie,

(internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reynolds’

motion for a new trial and did not plainly err in responding to the jury’s question. The

record does not suggest that the jury rendered a verdict inconsistent with the evidence

presented at trial. Furthermore, the district court responded appropriately to the jury

question during deliberation, and the brevity of the deliberation following that response

does not refute the presumption that the jury followed the judge’s instructions. See United

States v. Burfoot,

(4th Cir. 2018).

Second, Reynolds contends that the district court erroneously applied a six-level

enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(3)(2) (2023), by

considering his flight from law enforcement six days after the robbery as relevant conduct.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States,

(2007). This review entails appellate

consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

. In assessing procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly

calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 4 of 5

argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the

(a) factors, and

sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

. “A sentence based on an

improperly calculated Guidelines range is procedurally unreasonable.” United States v.

Shephard,

(4th Cir. 2018). “In assessing whether a district court properly

calculated the Guidelines range, including its application of any sentencing enhancements,

[we] review[] the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear

error.” United States v. Pena,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “[C]lear error exists only when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.

Slager,

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The

government bears the burden of establishing the applicability of a sentencing enhancement

by the preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Henderson,

(4th

Cir. 2023).

Section § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) provides for a six-level enhancement when a robbery

victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury. Conduct that may be

considered in applying this enhancement includes all acts and omissions by the defendant

“that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that

offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.”

USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Application of the relevant conduct standard “involves

consideration of factual circumstances, such as whether acts or omissions are sufficiently

similar; whether they are sufficiently regular; whether they are sufficiently close in time;

and whether, when one factor is particularly weak or even lacking, another factor

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 5 of 5

compensates to satisfy the factual requirements of relevant conduct.” United States v.

McVey,

(4th Cir. 2014).

The district court did not clearly err in considering Reynolds’ flight from law

enforcement six days after the armed robbery as relevant conduct. The evidence presented

at trial and sentencing demonstrated that Reynolds was aware that authorities were looking

for him after the robbery, and Reynolds was actively attempting to avoid responsibility for

the robbery at the time of the car crash that resulted in the death of an individual. As such,

the flight was properly considered relevant conduct for application of the six-level

enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C).

Accordingly, we affirm Reynolds’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5