Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rodney Tyrone Henry, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court briefNov 20, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

VII.

APPENDIX

Index of Appendices

June 2, 2024 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Eighth Circuit affirming United States District Court, United

States v. Henry, 106 F.4th 763 (8th Cir. 2024) ............................. A-1

August 21, 2024 Order denying Mr. Henry’s

Petition for Rehearing ...............................................................A-12

Henry’s Sentencing Memorandum ..........................................A-13

Henry’s Motion for Downward Departure ...............................A-31

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2542

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

Rodney Tyrone Henry

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 23-2554

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

Daryl Strickland, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeals from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

____________

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 1

A-1

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

Submitted: February 13, 2024

Filed: July 2, 2024

[Published]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge,1 BENTON and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Daryl Strickland, Jr., and Rodney Tyrone Henry pleaded guilty pursuant to

written plea agreements to murder while discharging a firearm in furtherance of a

crime of violence. Both were subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment by the

district court.2 On appeal, Strickland and Henry argue that the district court erred in

finding that they committed the murder with premeditation. Henry also argues that

the district court erred in calculating his criminal history score and that his sentence

of life imprisonment is unreasonable. We affirm.

I. Background

Strickland and Henry were charged in a six-count indictment with two counts

of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, one count of attempt to interfere

with commerce by robbery, one count of murder while discharging a firearm in

furtherance of a crime of violence, one count of interference with commerce by

robbery, and one count of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

Strickland and the government subsequently entered into a plea agreement. Strickland

agreed to waive indictment and permit the government to file a superseding

Judge Smith completed his term as chief judge of the circuit on March 10,

2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3)(A).

The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 2

A-2

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

information charging him with murder while discharging a firearm in furtherance of

a crime of violence; in exchange, the government agreed to dismiss the indictment.

Strickland stipulated that the following facts were true in his plea agreement:

On November 12, 2018, at 5:22pm, Daryl Strickland, Jr. and Rodney

Tyrone Henry knocked on the front door of Wise Buck Pawn Shop in

Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and asked if the store was still open. Wise Buck

Pawn Shop was a federal firearms licensee, engaging in business that

affected interstate commerce. The owner of the pawn shop, Brandon

McHan, told Strickland and Henry through the locked front door that the

store was closed for the night. Strickland and Henry then appeared to

leave the area. McHan and his friend, Jason Booth, who were the only

two in the store, continued closing. At approximately 5:30pm, McHan

and Booth exited the front door of the pawn shop to start their vehicles

because it was cold. Booth put his firearm in his car, and both went back

inside the store. At 5:34pm, Strickland and Henry entered the threshold

of the pawn shop, and Strickland fired several gunshots, striking both

McHan and Booth multiple times. Strickland and Henry then retreated

from the entrance of the store. Two minutes later, Strickland and Henry

both returned to the front door of the pawn shop, and Strickland began

shooting into the pawn shop. When McHan and Booth fired back,

Strickland retreated. After Strickland retreated, Henry fired multiple

gunshots into the pawn shop. Strickland then returned to the doorway of

the pawn shop and fired more gunshots inside. Strickland and Henry

then left the scene.

Approximately an hour later, Strickland and Henry entered the

Alon gas station at 2800 South Olive Street in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and

held the store clerk at gun point. Henry, while pointing a firearm at the

store clerk, went behind the counter and emptied the cash register.

Strickland remained at the front of the counter, also holding the clerk at

gunpoint. In addition to $800, Henry stole the store clerk’s firearm.

Brandon McHan died later that night. McHan’s autopsy revealed

three gunshot wounds, which caused his death. The first bullet entered

his right abdomen and exited his back. The second bullet entered his

-3-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 3

A-3

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

right thigh and exited his right hip. A third [gunshot] was a

through-and-through wound to the right lower leg. Booth, who was near

the door when Strickland initially opened fire into the pawn shop, was

shot in the face near the chin area, and the bullet exited through his

neck. Booth was also shot in the left hand.

R. Doc. 80, at 6–7.

Strickland’s plea agreement contains an appeal waiver. Strickland agreed to

waive[] the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional issues including, but not

limited to, any issues relating to pre-trial motions, hearings and

discovery and any issues relating to the negotiation, taking or

acceptance of the guilty plea or the factual basis for the plea, including

the sentence imposed or any issues that relate to the establishment of the

Guideline range.

Id. at 3. The appeal waiver, however, does afford Strickland “the limited right to

appeal the substantive reasonableness of the sentence of imprisonment if the [c]ourt

determines that the murder of Brandon McHan was premeditated and applies

Application Note 2(A) of U.S.S.G. [§] 2A1.1 and imposes a life sentence.” Id. at 3.

Henry also waived indictment and pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement

to the superseding information charging him with murder while discharging a firearm

in furtherance of a crime of violence. During Henry’s change-of-plea hearing, the

government read the same facts that Strickland stipulated to in his plea agreement and

stated that it would present evidence at trial to prove those facts. Henry admitted to

the district court that he had a weapon at the pawn shop and that he fired shots into

the pawn shop. He also admitted that McHan was murdered with a firearm in the

perpetration of the crime. As in Strickland’s case, the appeal waiver in Henry’s plea

agreement prevents him from appealing, among other things, “the sentence imposed

-4-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 4

A-4

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

or any issues that relate to the establishment of the Guideline range.” R. Doc. 91, at

3. But it permits him “to appeal claims of prosecutorial misconduct,” as well as

the limited right to appeal [1] the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence of imprisonment if the sentence is above the Guideline range

that is established at sentencing and if the defendant makes a

contemporaneous objection; . . . [2] if the [c]ourt determines that the

murder of Brandon McHan was premeditated and applies Application

Note 2(A) of U.S.S.G. [§] 2A1.1; and [3] . . . the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence of imprisonment if the [c]ourt imposes

a life sentence . . . .

Id.

Prior to sentencing, Henry, Strickland, and the government all filed sentencing

memoranda with the district court. Strickland requested a sentence of less than life

imprisonment, and Henry requested a downward variance. Henry also filed a motion

for a downward departure.

The district court held a joint sentencing hearing. It noted that the applicable

statute provides for a maximum term of life imprisonment. The district court

calculated Strickland’s Guidelines range to be 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment.

Henry objected to three criminal history points that he was assessed for two Arkansas

juvenile convictions, arguing that he should not have received criminal history points

for those convictions because they should have been expunged under Arkansas law.

The district court overruled Henry’s objection. It calculated Henry’s Guidelines range

to be 360 months’ to life imprisonment.

Next, the parties litigated the issue of premeditation to determine the

applicability of Application Note 2(A) of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1. The government offered

into evidence, among other things, security camera footage from the pawn shop

-5-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 5

A-5

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

(Exhibit 1). The government played relevant clips of Exhibit 1 for the district court,

which shows the following events. Strickland and Henry approached the pawn shop

at approximately 5:22 p.m. and left at approximately 5:23 p.m. In his interview with

law enforcement, Strickland admitted that he and Henry reentered the car and talked

about how they were going to go back and approach the pawn shop. At approximately

5:35 p.m., Strickland entered the threshold of the pawn shop and began firing shots,

Henry stuck his head into the threshold of the pawn shop, and then they both

retreated. At 5:36 p.m., Strickland shot again, Henry shot, Strickland returned to fire

more shots, and then they both retreated. The government played another clip from

Exhibit 1, which is footage from a different camera inside the pawn shop. The

government pointed out to the court that the shots fired by Henry were fired where

Booth had been standing when Henry had previously stuck his head through the door.

After hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court found that both

Strickland and Henry acted with premeditation. The district court found that

Strickland acted with “premeditation in his decisions to enter the Wise Buck Pawn

Shop and essentially shoot first and ask questions later.” R. Doc. 126, at 76. The

district court further found that Henry did nothing to “dissuade[] Mr. Strickland in

that first . . . fire fight” and that Henry intended “to kill the occupants inside” when

he “shot into the store.” Id.

Strickland moved for a downward variance from the application note stating

that life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence and requested a sentence within

what his Guidelines range would have been without the application note. The district

court denied Strickland’s motion for a downward variance and sentenced him to life

imprisonment after “consider[ing] his presentence report in its entirety, the evidence

received today, the comments of counsel, the comments of Mr. Strickland, the

comments of the witnesses here today regarding their loss, and the factors found in

18 U.S.C. Section 3553.” Id. at 110. The court concluded that a life sentence “is

-6-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 6

A-6

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

sufficient but no greater than necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense,

promote respect for the law, but also address [Strickland’s] needs.” Id. at 111.

The district court denied Henry’s prior request for a downward variance and

his motion for a downward departure. “After . . . consider[ing] Mr. Henry’s

presentence report in its entirety, comments of counsel, and the comments of Mr.

Henry as well as those who have spoken on behalf of the McHan family, and

considering the provisions found in 18, U.S.C., Section 3553,” the district court

sentenced Henry to life imprisonment. Id. at 126. The court did not consider Henry

to be any less culpable than Strickland based on the evidence.

II. Discussion

On appeal, Strickland and Henry both argue that the district court erred in

finding that the killing of McHan was premeditated and therefore warranted a life

sentence under Application Note 2(A) of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1. Henry additionally argues

that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines range because it included

criminal history points for juvenile adjudications. Finally, Henry argues that his life

sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his

age at the time of the offense, childhood trauma, intellectual ability, lack of a male

role model, and role in the offense.

A. Premeditation

Both Strickland and Henry challenge the district court’s finding that they acted

with premeditation in the killing of McHan for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1.

Strickland argues that the killing of McHan was an unplanned result of the botched

robbery due to a victim who was “prepared for a firefight.” Strickland’s Br. at 7. He

notes the lack of any text messages, telephone calls, or statements showing that he

had the intent to kill prior to entering the pawn shop. He also points out that only

eight seconds elapsed from when he entered the pawn shop and engaged in gunfire

with McHan. Henry argues that there is no evidence that he “knew Strickland was

-7-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 7

A-7

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

going to immediately open fire on the inhabitants in the pawn shop” or that he

“organized or led the robbery.” Henry’s Br. at 9.

“Whether the defendant committed or attempted a murder with premeditation

is a question of fact.” United States v. Wilson, 992 F.2d 156, 158 (8th Cir. 1993) (per

curiam). We review for clear error the district court’s finding of premeditation. United

States v. Graham, 323 F.3d 603, 609 (8th Cir. 2003).

“Section 2A1.1 sets a base offense level of 43 for first-degree murder.” United

States v. Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106, 1114 (8th Cir. 2020). Its commentary provides: “In

the case of premeditated killing, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence if a

sentence of death is not imposed.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1

cmt. n.2(A)). “The amount of time needed for premeditation must be long enough for

the defendant, after forming the intent to kill, to be fully conscious of his intent, and

to have thought about the killing.” United States v. Angel, 93 F.4th 1075, 1079 (8th

Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But the government is not required “to show that the

defendant deliberated for any particular length of time” to prove premeditation. Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant’s “[s]wift but deliberate actions

before shooting can demonstrate . . . the requisite premeditation.” Id. (cleaned up).

Here, the video shows that Strickland and Henry approached the pawn shop but

left after being told it was closed. Twelve minutes later, they returned. Strickland

entered the threshold of the pawn shop and began firing shots, Henry stuck his head

into the threshold of the pawn shop, and then they both retreated. A couple of minutes

later, they returned. Strickland fired shots into the pawn shop again. Booth and

McHan returned fire. Strickland retreated. Henry then fired several shots toward

Booth and McHan, not away from them. Strickland then went to the pawn shop’s

front door and fired more shots. Thereafter, Strickland and Henry fled the scene.

These facts show that Strickland and Henry “had enough time to be fully conscious

-8-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 8

A-8

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

of [their] intent and to deliberate about [their] conduct. The district court did not

clearly err in finding [they] acted with premeditation.” Id.

B. Henry’s Criminal History Score

Henry argues that the district court miscalculated his criminal history score by

assessing three criminal history points for two juvenile offenses. The government has

moved to dismiss Henry’s appeal in part, arguing that Henry’s claim of procedural

error in calculating his criminal history score is barred by his appeal waiver. We

agree.

“We review de novo the issue of whether a defendant has knowingly and

voluntarily waived rights in a plea agreement.” United States v. Guzman, 707 F.3d

938, 941 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our obligation is to

“confirm that the appeal falls within the scope of the [appeal] waiver and that both

the waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). But we will not enforce an appeal waiver that a

defendant entered knowingly and voluntarily if doing so “would result in a

miscarriage of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Henry’s appeal waiver explicitly waives all of his appellate rights except for

claims of prosecutorial misconduct, as well as challenges to the “the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence of imprisonment if the sentence is above the Guideline

range that is established at sentencing and if [Henry] makes a contemporaneous

objection,” the district court’s determination that Henry acted with premeditation as

to the killing of McHan, and “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence of

imprisonment if the [c]ourt imposes a life sentence.” R. Doc. 91, at 3. Henry’s

argument that the district court procedurally erred in calculating his criminal history

score because it included two state juvenile delinquency adjudications does not

involve one of the enumerated exceptions listed in the appeal waiver. Instead,

Henry’s claim that the district court miscalculated his criminal history score is a claim

-9-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 9

A-9

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

of procedural error. See United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009)

(treating a claim that the district court erroneously assessed criminal history points

as a claim of procedural error); Henry’s Br. at 10 (“The district court committed

procedural error by improperly calculating Mr. Henry’s criminal history score.”

(emphasis added)). Henry’s appeal challenging the court’s calculation of his criminal

history score falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, not one of its exceptions.

The record also shows that Henry entered his plea agreement knowingly and

voluntarily. In the plea agreement, Henry affirmed that he had “read this Agreement

and Addendum and carefully reviewed every part of it with his/her attorney,” that he

“underst[ood] and voluntarily agree[d] to the terms and condition[s] of this

Agreement and Addendum,” and that he had “consulted with his . . . attorney and

fully underst[ood] his . . . rights with respect to the provisions of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines which may apply to this case.” R. Doc. 91, at 13–14. Henry

further acknowledged that he was not “threatened or forced . . . in any way to enter

into this Agreement and Addendum” but instead “entered into this Agreement and

Addendum, consciously and deliberately, by [his] free choice, and without duress,

undue influence or otherwise being forced or compelled to do so.” Id. at 14.

Additionally, the district court confirmed at the change-of-plea hearing that Henry

had “gone over the waivers section [of the plea agreement] with [his] lawyers.” R.

Doc. 125, at 16. Henry acknowledged that he was “giving up virtually every right of

appeal [he] ha[s]” “by entering into this plea agreement.” Id. The appeal waiver in

Henry’s plea agreement was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See Guzman,

707 F.3d at 941.

“Based on the record, we conclude the appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver and that both the waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and

voluntarily.” Id. at 942 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Henry’s life

sentence is within the applicable statutory range, no miscarriage of justice results

from enforcement of the appeal waiver. Cf. id. (holding that enforcing the appeal

-10-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 10

A-10

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

waiver when the sentence was below the statutory maximum did not amount to a

miscarriage of justice).

C. Substantive Reasonableness of Henry’s Life Sentence

Henry also contends that his life sentence is substantively unreasonable. He

“argues that the district court failed to properly consider his history and

characteristics. Specifically, his age at the time of the offense, childhood trauma,

intellectual ability, lack of a male role model, and his role in the offense.” Henry’s Br.

at 15.

“When we review the imposition of sentences, whether inside or outside the

Guidelines range, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States

v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Because Henry’s life

“sentence is within the Guidelines range,” we may afford it “a presumption of

reasonableness.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court expressly noted at sentencing that it had considered Henry’s

mitigation arguments, but it ultimately rejected them. Henry’s disagreement with the

district court’s weighing of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances is

insufficient to show that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. See

United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Simply because the

district court weighed the relevant factors more heavily than [the defendant] would

prefer does not mean the district court abused its discretion.”).

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss in part Henry’s

appeal and affirm the judgments of the district court.

______________________________

-11-

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 11

A-11

Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Entry ID: 5409248

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 23-2542

United States of America

Appellee

Rodney Tyrone Henry

Appellant

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

(4:19-cr-00580-JM-2)

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel is

also denied.

August 21, 2024

Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:

Acting Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

____________________________________

/s/ Maureen W. Gornik

Appellate Case: 23-2542

Page: 1

A-12

Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Entry ID: 5426792

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

VS.

RODNEY T. HENRY

4:19-CR-00580-02-JM

RODNEY HENRY’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND REQUEST

FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE GUIDELINES FOR A SENTENCE OF

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS

NOW COMES DEFENDANT, RODNEY HENRY, by and through counsel,

and requests this Court respectfully impose a sentence of less than life and shows in

support as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Henry, along with Daryl Strickland, was charged in a multi-count federal

indictment and pled to one count of Murder While Discharging a Firearm in

Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (j) (1) on or

about October 3, 2019. This indictment is the result of a shooting that occurred

during a robbery of the Wise Buck Guns & Pawn Shop on November 12, 2018. Mr.

Henry was arrested on December 4, 2018 and originally held in state custody until

December 5, 2019 when he was taken into federal custody on a detainer. He has

been in custody since December 4, 2018.

A-13

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 2 of 18

The § 3553 (a) FACTORS SUPPORT A

SENTENCE OF TWENTY FIVE YEARS

When determining a sentence, the Court is required to consider the factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) : (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense

and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the

seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just

punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the

public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational

training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing

Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission;

(9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide

restitution to victims.

RODNEY HENRY’S PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SUPPORT A SENTENCE OF TWENTY FIVE YEARS

Here, the facts of the case and the unique history and circumstances of Rodney

Henry call for a sentence of twenty-five (25) years. A twenty-five-year sentence is

a long sentence, but allows for the hope and redemption of a young man who had

just turned 21 at the time of this offense.

Age and the Juvenile Brain

The most significant factor is that Rodney had just turned 21 years old at the time

of this offense. To be clear: the facts of this case are serious, what happened was

A-14

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 3 of 18

serious, and the Sentencing Guidelines call for a serious sentence. Recent studies

show adolescents’ brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or

solve problems. Their actions are guided more by the emotional and reactive

amygdala and less by the thoughtful, logical frontal cortex. Research has shown that

exposure to drugs and alcohol during the teen years can change or delay these

developments.

(American Academy of Child an Adolescent Psychiatry, 2023).

Research has also found that teen brains may respond to stress differently than

adults.

This could increase teens’ chances of developing stress-related mental

illnesses such as anxiety and depression.

(National Institute of Mental Health,

2023).

Moreover, based on the stage of their brain development, adolescents are more

likely to: act on impulse, misread or misinterpret social cues and emotions, get into

accidents of all kinds, get involved in fights and engage in dangerous or risky

behavior. Adolescents are less likely to think before they act, pause to consider the

consequences of their actions, or change their dangerous or inappropriate behaviors.

(American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2023)

Rodney is no exception to these findings.

behavior proves it.

He fits all the criteria and his

His life history has been a series of numerous incidents of

terrible trauma, involving a single parent upbringing, domestic violence at home, no

positive adult role models, poverty, a serious fire that led to the loss of the family’s

A-15

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 4 of 18

home and belongings. Rodney’s family moved around frequently, but always in

communities in Camden with drugs and gang activity.

intellectual disabilities.

Rodney suffers from

Rodney should not have been associating with Mr.

Strickland and should not have made the bad decision to leave Camden and go to

Pine Bluff where this tragic incident occurred. Rodney was not thinking clearly nor

rationally. However, it is important to understand that Rodney’s adolescence,

intellectual disabilities and his extensive childhood trauma all contributed to his poor

judgment. He is worthy of compassion and he is capable of rehabilitation.

CHILDHOOD TRAUMA

Rodney was raised by his mother, Lisa Wright, along with his brother,

Strodney, and half-brother, FranDarrren.

His father, Jerome Henry, did not

participate in his sons’ lives because he was in and out of jail or prison for the better

part of Rodney’s life. He is not even listed on Rodney’s birth certificate. (Birth

Certificate Attached as Exhibit 1).

father.

To this day Rodney has no contact with his

In particular, Rodney’s father refused to allow Rodney to come visit him

even when Rodney’s brother, FranDarren, would be invited to visit with their father.

Rodney learned early it was because his father did not believe Rodney was his son

because his skin was so much darker than his own or FranDarren’s skin. Rodney

has carried this devastating hurt throughout his entire life. (Photo of Rodney and his

brothers, Attached as Exhibit 2).

A-16

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 5 of 18

The presence of other men in his life through his mother, in particular his

stepfather, Carl Tate, also did not provide a good influence. Rodney never had any

worthy male role models.

Most of these men were drug users. In particular, as

noted in the PSR, Rodney’s stepfather, Carl Tate, was addicted to drugs and was

even arrested for capital murder while he was married to Rodney’s mother. (PSR,

Par. 47). He is currently incarcerated. While he was married to Rodney’s mother,

he regularly used drugs in front of Rodney and his siblings and even encouraged

Rodney to use drugs. The only two men in Rodney’s life were both incarcerated

for lengthy periods of time.

While Rodney’s mother has always been employed and always found a place

for her children to live, she continually struggled to make ends meet. The family

has always received benefits. (Records Attached as Exhibit 3).

Ms. Wright has

worked for years at the Camden Arsenal. She has always tried her best to provide

for the family. The family moved around the Camden area and attended numerous

different schools in several school districts. Unfortunately, most of the places the

family was able to afford to live did not provide a wholesome environment in which

to grow up. Drugs, crime and poverty were commonplace.

Rodney’s school

teachers at Camden recall him being teased by the other students because of the

condition and quality of his tennis shoes and clothes.

A-17

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 6 of 18

Tragically, when Rodney was only four years old he was playing with a lighter

in his bedroom in his family’s apartment at Lincoln Center in the Camden Housing

Authority and caught his bed on fire. The apartment went up in flames and the fire

department was called.

(Fire Record Attached as Exhibit 4).

The apartment

suffered severe smoke damage and the family lost everything and was displaced.

The family was not able to save but a few belongings, including a few family photos.

(Photo of Rodney, his mother and stepfather and brothers, Attached as Exhibit 5).

Rodney has never forgotten this incident and he still suffers emotionally from it.

(See, PSR- Par. 51). Rodney attended counseling since a young age at both the

Ouachita Valley Family Clinic and Dayspring Behavioral Health Services.

(Document, Attached as Exhibit 6).

While Rodney’s mother, Lisa, did her best to support her children in their

basic needs, she had a difficult time helping them to achieve in school because both

Rodney and Strodney were in special education with severe learning disabilities.

Rodney’s teachers noted that Ms. Tate Wright attempted to help her sons, who both

were in special education, and always attended the teacher/parent conferences.

Intellectual Disabilities and Special Education

Rodney was placed in special education classes early on in his education, as

early as elementary school. (Camden Fairview Public Schools Decision, Attached

as Exhibit 7). Rodney consistently scored Below Average in intellectual assessment

A-18

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 7 of 18

scales. (Psychoeducational Evaluation Attached as Exhibit 8). While Rodney’s

special education teachers and counselors all agree that Rodney tried very hard in

school, they agreed he was just not able to achieve scholastic success.

His

Individualized Educational Plan indicated he needed service in math and literacy

with the disability of Speech Language Impairment. Due to his disabilities, Rodney

was determined to be at risk for a variety of factors, and it was recommended that

his education plans include vocational training. (IEP, Attached as Exhibit 9).

Rodney was enrolled in the Alternative Learning Environment (ALE). The ALE

program used much smaller classes and a different curriculum. Indeed, because of

Rodney’s impaired language skills he was placed in individual mental health therapy

because group mental health therapy would require greater verbal and understanding

skills than he possessed.

At the time, the clinician noted Rodney had difficulty

understanding and communicating with his peers. Despite all of this, Rodney was

not able to achieve. (Grade Report, Attached as Exhibit 10).

His special education teachers in the ALE program describe Rodney as having

trouble comprehending what he just read and had difficulty processing language.

Rodney’s teachers described him as a polite and respectful young man that struggled

mightily to understand his school work. They report that despite his difficulties in

understanding the most basic concepts, he never gave up.

A-19

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 8 of 18

Rodney also had specific learning disabilities in reading and math, as well a

speech language impairment. (Evaluation Attached as Exhibit 11).

The class

lessons would be modified to accommodate his learning disabilities. Even if his

grades appeared average, the grades would be based on the curriculum taught in the

ALE program and not actually reflective of his intellectual achievement. Rodney

ranked 131 out of 158 students in his class at the time of his graduation. (Transcript

Attached as Exhibit 12). It was a huge achievement for Rodney to graduate from

high school and a testament to his perseverance and the skill and devotion of his

teachers. (PSR, Par. 53).

His teachers describe Rodney as a student and a young man that would do

what he was told to do. He was easily led and was never a behavior problem in class.

His teachers all describe Rodney as a sweet person who had hopes and aspirations

of achievement and taking care of his own family. Unfortunately, his intellectual

limitations prevented him from most of those hopes and achievements. He struggled

even with the modified discipline for the class.

Rodney deeply desired to improve himself and enrolled in Southern Arkansas

University Tech despite his intellectual limitations.

Unfortunately, Rodney was

unable to complete even a semester and was on academic probation.

(SAU

Transcript Attached as Exhibit 13).

A-20

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 9 of 18

Rodney’s behavior at school was that of a polite young man. The school

resource counselor, Officer McKnight, remembers Rodney as always polite and with

a good attitude and never rude. If she told him to do something, he would do it. She

recalled Rodney’s mother coming to appointments when advised, but that was the

extent of her helping Rodney with his school work. She describes Rodney as having

the most beautiful smile.

(Photograph of Rodney as a young boy, Attached as

Exhibit 14). Rodney was always eager to please and would help out at the school

cleaning the football fields on Saturday mornings after Friday night football games.

The school janitor, Rev. Lannell Moore, who ran an after-school program for

the Special Education children, described Rodney as kind and helpful. Rodney

would help him every day after school. Rodney would cheerfully perform any task

Rev. Moore assigned to him, whether it was cleaning the blackboards or sweeping

and mopping the floors. Rodney was never able to operate any equipment, such as

the buffer, because it was not safe for him to operate dangerous machinery. Rev.

Moore would have to repeat his instructions to Rodney numerous times and Rodney

required constant supervision because he could not remember how to complete the

task. Rodney did well at repetitive tasks. These are examples of adaptive deficits

of individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Rev. Jeffrey Fields, who supervised Rodney in the after school suspension

program at Camden High School describes Rodney as socially challenged as well as

A-21

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 10 of 18

mentally and educationally challenged.

Rodney had difficulty picking things up

and was never developed any reasoning skills. Rev. Field states these challenges

led to behavioral issues, nothing bad or violent, but joking and kidding around. Rev.

Fields noted that the kids in the after-school program were labelled “bad kids” and

after a while they started to believe they were “bad kids”. Rev. Fields stated none

of these children had any plans for after school and this led to problems. Rev. Fields

describes Rodney as a “someone who blends in and goes along to get along”.

Rodney was a follower. (Letter from Rev. Fields, Attached as Exhibit 15).

Significantly, Chaplain Kenny Pugh with the Greene County Detention

Center, wrote a compelling letter on behalf of Rodney. Chaplain Pugh has spent a

lot of time with Rodney in the past several years. He noted that Rodney has

completed many correspondence courses relating to religious enlightenment.

Chaplain Pugh also detailed how Rodney, despite the difficulties of the jail

environment has maintained his friendly personality and his ability to cooperate with

others.

Touchingly, Chaplain Pugh, in his letter, wanted the Court to know that

Rodney has a great potential to help adolescents based on his own experiences.

(Letter from Chaplain Pugh, Attached as Exhibit 16).

EMPLOYMENT

Rodney proudly graduated from high school, but his intellectual deficits have

prevented him from achieving any meaningful employment. Indeed, his intellectual

A-22

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 11 of 18

deficits prevented him from maintaining even the most basic employment, such as

McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Dollar Tree or Wal-Mart because of his inability to follow

instructions, appear on time, perform even the simplest of tasks, and, in the case of

his job at Dollar Tree, even make change at the register. Rodney’s longest job was

at Tyson Chicken in Hope, Arkansas but he was not able to get reliable rides to and

from work. Rodney does not have a driver’s license because he was never able to

pass the written part of the test. At the time of this offense, Rodney had just started

working at Taco Bell. Rodney was always trying to stay employed, trying to

improve his life and for that of his children.

Due to his limitations Rodney had

difficulty succeeding in anything but the most menial of jobs, but his job history

shows he persevered. (PSR, Par. 54-59).

CRIMINAL HISTORY

Rodney has no significant adult criminal history, and no adult criminal history

of violence. However, Rodney does have a juvenile history, that is commensurate

with his upbringing of chaos and lack of parental supervision as well as his

intellectual disabilities.

Rodney’s involvement with the criminal justice system

started when he was 15 years old and was taken into the Department of Youth

Services at aged 15. It is not surprising he continued to have trouble as a juvenile

after being incarcerated at such a young age and taken away from his family.

A-23

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 12 of 18

ROLE

The defense respectfully notes the facts of the case support that Rodney was

not the leader in this criminal venture. The facts of Rodney’s life also support that

he is a follower, not a leader, as his teachers noted. The forensic evidence shows the

co-defendant, Mr. Strickland, was the primary aggressor and the primary shooter.

(PSR, Par. 6). The Court can consider this fact in determining a reasonable sentence

for Rodney. While this supports the requested variance, Mr. Henry has filed a

separate motion for a downward departure based on his role in the offense.

FAMILY SUPPORT

Rodney is very close to his family. Throughout the many years he has been

held in pre-trial, his family has supported him. He is particularly close to his mother

and his brothers, Strodney and Frandarren. (Family and Friend Letters Attached as

Exhibit 17). Rodney is the proud father of Jordan Henry, age 7 and Nikeya Henry,

age 5. (Photos Attached as Exhibit 18). Despite being in pre-trial custody for years,

Rodney has stayed in daily contact with his family.

A Life Sentence Without the Possibilty of Parole is a

Cruel Sentence and Does Not Meet The Goals of Sentencing

To receive a life sentence with no possibility of parole would leave a young

man with no hope. Even if he served a substantial amount of time, it is unlikely he

would emerge from the Bureau of Prisons a recidivist due to his likely age of release.

A-24

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 13 of 18

Between 2005-2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several decisions

banning extreme adult sentences for youth. While Rodney was not technically a

minor at the time of this crime, he had just turned 21 years old. In Roper v. Simmons,

543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for children under

age 18.

In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Court banned life without

parole sentences for youth convicted of non-homicide crimes; and in Miller v.

Alabama, 567 U.S. _ (2012), the Court banned mandatory sentences of life without

parole in homicide cases. While youth may still be sentenced to discretionary life

without parole in homicide cases, these sentences should be rare and uncommon and

reserved only for individuals who the court has deemed are incapable of

rehabilitation.

Here, it is clear that Rodney is capable of rehabilitation. He graduated from

high school, attempted to go to college, albeit unsuccessfully due to his intellectual

disabilities, maintained a series of jobs and has loving relationships with his family.

He has two children he loves dearly. Rodney has shown he was able to adapt under

difficult circumstances while incarcerated. Rodney was housed in jail conditions at

Greene County that were less than exemplary for an extraordinary amount of time.

The jail records show no significant disciplinary actions. He was held in pretrial

conditions for years due to his case being continued and due to the global pandemic,

A-25

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 14 of 18

which effectively shut down the court system. Rodney suffered from Covid

numerous times.

Rodney was involved in a terrible crime. However, the specific circumstances

of Rodney, his age and the stated policy goals of the United States Sentencing

Guidelines as well as society’s current understanding of the limitations of a juvenile

brain and the concept of rehabilitation call for a sentence of less than life without

parole. A sentence of 25 years is a reasonable sentence and meets all the

requirements of the §3553 (a) factors.

GUIDELINE OBJECTIONS

The following arguments are made in support of the objections previously

made to the presentence report as noted in the addendum of such. Mr. Henry

contends that because the Arkansas juvenile code does not allow the trial court to

determine the length of confinement for juvenile offenders, a finding that Mr. Henry

was sentenced to confinement of at least sixty days is prohibited.

Under Arkansas law, should a court deem it appropriate to sentence a juvenile

delinquent to confinement, the sentencing court does not determine the length of that

confinement. Instead, the length of confinement is solely determined by the Division

of Youth Services of the Department of Human Services. See Ark. Code Ann. § 927-330. LexisNexis (2013-2014). “Upon receipt of an order of commitment, with

recommendations for placement, the division shall consider the recommendations

A-26

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 15 of 18

of the committing court in placing the juvenile in a youth services facility or

community-based program.” 9-27-330(a)(1)(B)(iv) LexisNexis (2013-2014)

emphasis added.

Here, the sentencing court did not specifically sentence Mr. Henry to

confinement of at least 60 days. The sentencing court lacked the authority to

determine the appropriate length of confinement for Mr. Henry. The actual

determination of the length of confinement was made extra-judicially by DYS.

Should any points be attributed to Mr. Henry’s conduct in paragraphs 32, 34, or 35,

it should not exceed 1 point per offense.

Furthermore, as to paragraph 32 of the PSR, Mr. Henry’s juvenile adjudication

for residential burglary has been expunged and should not be counted according to

USSG 4A1.2(j). Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-309 provides that

[r]ecords of delinquency adjudications for which a juvenile could have

been tried as an adult shall be kept for ten (10) years after the last

adjudication of delinquency or the date of a plea of guilty or nolo

contendere or a finding of guilt as an adult.

(B) Thereafter they may be expunged.

(2) The court may expunge other juvenile records at any time and shall

expunge all the records of a juvenile upon his or her twenty-first

birthday, in other types of delinquency, dependency-neglect, or families

in need of services cases.

As Mr. Henry was aged fifteen at the time of the residential burglary, he could not

be tried as an adult for that offense. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318. Mr. Henry

A-27

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 16 of 18

reached his twenty-first birthday shortly before the present offense. Therefore, this

offense was expunged prior to November 12, 2018.

The same applies to paragraph 34 of the PSR, Mr. Henry’s juvenile

adjudication for disorderly conduct has been expunged and should not be counted

according to USSG 4A1.2(j).

Pursuant to USSG 4A.1.2(c)(1), the offense of disorderly conduct shall not be

counted unless the sentence was a term of probation of more than one year or a term

of imprisonment of at least thirty days. Mr. Henry was committed to DYS for an

indeterminate period of confinement, and he was sentenced to one year probation.

Neither sentence authorizes a criminal history point.

As to Paragraph 36, Mr. Henry does not recall this conviction and believes it

was associated with the subsequent felony charge that is referenced in paragraph 41,

which remains pending. Mr. Henry further objects to the assignment of one criminal

history point because he lacked counsel at the time of his plea.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, Mr. Rodney Henry respectfully requests

this Court grant his Motion for a Variance from the Sentencing Guidelines and

impose a sentence of less than life without parole.

Respectfully submitted,

A-28

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 17 of 18

Robby Golden, AR Bar No. 2003134

3700 Cantrell Road, Suite 102

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

(501) 372-8600

(888) 830-6252 facsimile

Attorney.robby.golden@gmail.com

Leslie Borgognoni

AR Bar No. 85013

424 E. 6th Street

Little Rock, AR 72202

lborgognoni@sbcglobal.net

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

SANDRA MICHAELS

Mitigation Specialist for Rodney Henry

Georgia Bar No. 504014

965 Virginia Ave, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30306

(404) 312-5781

SLMichaelsLaw@gmail.com

A-29

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM Document 105 Filed 06/15/23 Page 18 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Robby Golden, hereby certify that this Motion was filed using the CM/ECF

and serves as notice to all parties on June 15, 2023:

Ms. Benecia Moore

Assistant United States Attorney

Ms. Kristin Bryant

Assistant United States Attorney

Robby Golden, No. 2003134

3700 Cantrell Road, Suite 102

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

(501) 372-8600

(888) 830-6252

Attorney.robby.golden@gmail.com

A-30

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

VS.

RODNEY T. HENRY

4:19-CR-00580-02-JM

MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE OR VARIANCE

Comes now Rodney Henry, by and through counsel, for his motion for a

downward departure.

U.S.S.G § 3B1.2 MITIGATING ROLE

Mr. Henry respectfully requests a departure from the offense level as

calculated in his presentence report based on U.S.S.G. §3B1.2. Mr. Henry disputes

the Government’s contention that he is equally culpable and responsible for the

death of Mr. McHan.

The application notes to U.S.S.G §3B1.2 state, “[t]he determination whether

to apply subsection (a) or subsection (b), or an intermediate adjustment, is based on

the totality of the circumstances and involves a determination that is heavily

dependent upon the facts of the particular case.” Application Note 3(C) to U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2 (2021). The notes provide a non-exhaustive list of factors that the

sentencing court should consider. Those are as follows:

A-31

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 2 of 15

(i) the degree to which the defendant understood the scope and

structure of the criminal activity;

(ii) the degree to which the defendant participated in planning or

organizing the criminal activity;

(iii) the degree to which the defendant exercised decision-making

authority or influenced the exercise of decision-making authority;

(iv) the nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in the

commission of the criminal activity, including the acts the defendant

performed and the responsibility and discretion the defendant had in

performing those acts;

(v) the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the

criminal activity.

Id.

Nothing indicates that Mr. Henry knew Mr. Strickland was going to enter the

shop and immediately open fire on Mr. Booth and Mr. McHan. Also, nothing

indicates that Mr. Henry organized the robbery or murder of Mr. McHan, or that he

exercised any decision making authority in the murder of Mr. McHan. In fact, the

video evidence indicates otherwise. Mr. Strickland leads the way in both robberies.

It is without dispute that Mr. Strickland entered the pawn shop alone and

immediately began shooting. (Government’s Exhibit 1, file 1421-4516 at

timestamp 5:34:52, file 1844-4433 at 5:34:52). When Mr. Strickland enters the

shop, Mr. McHan is located behind the counter, and Mr. Booth is outside the

counter in the store itself. Approximately six seconds after Strickland opens fire,

Mr. Henry reaches the entrance of the shop. Id. at 5:35:02. The two run into each

other when Mr. Henry reaches the entrance and both run away. Mr. Henry fired no

shots. After Mr. Strickland exits the first time, Mr. Booth retreats behind the

A-32

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 3 of 15

counter where Mr. McHan is located. (Government’s Exhibit 2, file 2107-4510 at

time stamp 5:35:28, file 1844-4433 at time stamp 5:35:18). Both remain behind the

counter until the police arrive.

Both Strickland and Mr. Henry return to the entrance with Mr. Strickland in

front leading the way. (Government’s Exhibit 1, file 1421-4516 at timestamp

5:36:42). At this point, Mr. Henry fires four shots through the glass door. Id. at

5:37:00. The shots by Mr. Henry are fired away from where Mr. Booth and Mr.

McHan are located taking cover behind the counter.

Numerous shell casings were recovered from the scene and subsequently

submitted to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. All casing recovered were

classified as .40 caliber except four. The four remaining casings recovered were

classified as .45 caliber. It appears from the video and the evidence at the crime

scene that Mr. Henry fired four shots. Defendant Henry’s Exhibit “A”.

A-33

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 4 of 15

A-34

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 5 of 15

The .45 caliber casings recovered and assigned evidence numbers E-1, E-2,

E-3, and E-4. The casings were submitted to the crime lab where they were found

to have been fired from the same weapon.

A-35

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 6 of 15

Of the four shots fired by Mr. Henry, three projectiles were recovered and

assigned evidence numbers E-29, E-30, and BW-4. These projectiles were

submitted to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory and identified as .45 caliber

class bullets. E-29 and E-30 were recovered from the opposite side of the room

from where Mr. Booth and Mr. McHan were taking cover.

A-36

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 7 of 15

[Wide angle view of the interior of the shop for perspective.]

A-37

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 8 of 15

The recovery of BW-4 was not documented by photograph, but it was described as

being recovered from the “inside business west wall near the exit door.” The

westerly portion of the shop is also opposite from the location of Mr. McHan and

Mr. Booth.

Evidence from the crime scene suggests that the fourth projectile fired by Mr.

Henry struck the headlight of the riding lawnmower, which also indicates that the

path of Mr. Henry’s shots were directed away from the location of Mr. McHan and

Mr. Booth. This projectile was not recovered.

A-38

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 9 of 15

A-39

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 10 of 15

A-40

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 11 of 15

As for the Alon robbery, again, Mr. Strickland enters the store first and

aggressively points his firearm at the store clerk. (Government’s Exhibit 2, file

20181112_183519 time stamp 18:35:53). Mr. Henry follows behind Mr. Strickland

and goes behind the counter. Mr. Henry is holding his firearm in his left hand and

never points it at the clerk. While behind the counter, Mr. Henry positions himself

between Strickland’s firearm and the store clerk. (Government Exhibit 2).

A-41

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 12 of 15

During this event no shots were fired by either Henry or Strickland, and

nothing from the circumstances at Alon indicate that Mr. Henry organized or led in

the commission of this robbery. Furthermore, this is proof that the shooting at the

pawn shop was not a premeditated killing. While the reasoning behind Mr.

Strickland opening fire at the pawn shop is unknown, there is no evidence that it

was anything other than the rogue independent actions of Mr. Strickland, and Mr.

Henry had no role in it.

The guidelines recognize a departure of 2 to 4 levels, depending on the

circumstances of the participation. After consideration of the factors mentioned

above, the court may find that the defendant was a “minimal participant” and

award a four-level reduction. The court may also find that the defendant was

A-42

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 13 of 15

“minor participant,” awarding a two-level reduction. Or, the court may find that a

participant falls in between a minimal and minor participant and award a threelevel reduction.

A minimal participant is described as defendants “who are plainly among the

least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group. Under this provision, the

defendant’s lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the

enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as minimal

participant.” Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (2021). Whereas, a “minor

participant” is described as those that are “less culpable than most other

participants in the criminal activity, but whose role could not be described as

minimal.” Id.

Mr. Henry contends that the totality of the circumstances in this case

establish that he falls in between minor and minimal and requests that he be

awarded a three-level reduction. Mr. Henry did not exercise any leadership or

control over the crimes that were committed. It was never Mr. Henry’s intent to

cause the loss of life or serious physical injury to another person. Without question,

when you participate in a robbery with firearms, there is a substantial risk that

someone can be killed or injured. Mr. Henry acknowledges his assistance in the

commission of the crimes, which is why he entered his plea of guilty and accepted

responsibility. However, the facts clearly show that he was not the cause of the

A-43

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 14 of 15

shooting of either Mr. Booth or Mr. McHan, and a role reduction should be

granted.

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 DEPARTURES BASED ON

INADEQUACY OF CRIMINAL HISTORY CATEGORY

Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, the court may grant a downward departure “if

reliable information indicates that the defendant’s criminal history category

substantially over-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history.”

(2021). This guideline applies here.

Per the presentence report, Mr. Henry’s criminal history score is six, which

places him in category three. This score substantially overrepresents the

seriousness of Mr. Henry criminal history. Mr. Henry’s criminal history as an adult

consists of one misdemeanor for theft by receiving. 1 The remainder of Mr. Henry’s

criminal history occurred as a juvenile for offenses he committed at the ages of

fifteen and sixteen.

As noted in paragraph 35 of the presentence report, Mr. Henry received two

points for stealing chips, cookies, and loose change from Camden Fairview Middle

School. Mr. Henry received one point for the offense of disorderly conduct when

he was sixteen years old. Paragraph 34 of the PSR. Mr. Henry received an

additional two points because his juvenile probation was revoked for not behaving

in school, not following curfew, and failing a drug test. Paragraph 32 of the PSR.

Mr. Henry did not receive the assistance of counsel at the time of conviction.

A-44

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104

Filed 06/15/23

Page 15 of 15

It is likely that had the above-refenced “offenses” occurred when the

defendant was an adult, he most likely would not have received similar “sentences

of imprisonment” and five (5) criminal history points for the same. Mr. Henry

requests that the court find that a criminal history score of six overrepresents the

seriousness of his criminal history and grants a downward departure to criminal

history category two.

Respectfully submitted,

Robby Golden, AR Bar No. 2003134

3700 Cantrell Road, Suite 102

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

(501) 372-8600

(888) 830-6252 facsimile

Attorney.robby.golden@gmail.com

Leslie Borgognoni

AR Bar No. 85013

424 E. 6th Street

Little Rock, AR 72202

lborgognoni@sbcglobal.net

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

A-45

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

Page 1 of 11

PINE BLUFF POLICE DEPARTMENT

Crime Scene Unit I Forensic Laboratory

200 E 8 Avenue

Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 71601

Office: (870) 850-2470 I Fax: (870) 850-2474

Crime Scene Unit

Evidence Log

Incident Number: 2018-045404

Reference: Homicide

Location: 2408 S. Camden

Victim(s): Brandon McHan, W/M,

Suspect(s): Unknown

Attention: Detective T. Smith

Date Of Incident: November 12, 2018

Date and

Time Out:

Supervisor's Approval:

Evidence

Number:

E-1

E-2

E-3

E-4

E-5

E-6

E-7

E-8

E-9

E-10

E-11

E-12

E-13

E-14

E-15

E-16

E-17

E-18

E-19

E-20

E-21

; Jason Booth, W/M,

I Description:

Disposition:

Collected

B :

WRA 69 Spent casing

CUE

RP 45 Auto spent casing

CUE

WRA 69 spent casing

CUE

WCC Match 18 spent casing

CUE

NFCR 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

WIN 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

WIN 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

NFCR 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

NFCR 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing with possible blood on it

CUE

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing with possible blood on it

CUE

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

NFCR 40 S&W spent casing

CUE

Remington 12ga Peters spent shell

Black in color Remington 870 12ga shotgun

Serial# RF41093A with 4-Remington 12ga Peters live shells E

Black in color I-Phone belonging to victim Brandon McHan KM

Dark green and black in color Glock Gen4 40mm with

Wise Buck and B.McHan on it serial# PVF243 with magazine

EXHIBIT "A"

A-46

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

Page 2 of 11

PINE BLUFF POLICE DEPARTMENT

Crime Scene Unit I Forensic Laboratory

200 E 8th Avenue

Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 71601

Office: (870) 850-2470 I Fax: (870) 850-2474

E-22

E-23

E-24

E-25

E-25a

E-26

E-27

E-28

E-29

E-30

E-31

E-32

E-33

E-34

E-35

E-36

BW-1

BW-2

BW-3

BW-4

BW-5

And possible blood on it

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

Green in color jacket 2xl with possible blood on it belonging

to one of the victim's

Key ring with 9 keys, two keyless entry remotes and a

Planet fitness card

Black in color t-shirt with possible blood on it belonging

To one of the victims

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

Projectile

Route 44 Sonic cup

NFCR 40 S&W spent casing

Red in color bandana

NFCR 40 S&W live rounds

black in color Smith &Wesson 40mm handgun

Serial# MRB 1586 with magazine and 10

WIN 40 S&W live rounds

CL/E

NFCR 40 S&W shell casing

Copper jacket

Projectile

Blue Nike shoes size 14, one pair white socks

Belonging to Jason Booth

CL/E

Amanda Hale

Crime Scene Technician

EXHIBIT "A"

A-47

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

P.O. Box 8500

3 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock AR 72215

Phone: (501) 227-5747

Fax· (501) 227-0713

ARKANSAS STATE CRIME LABORATORY

EVIDENCE SUBMISSION FORM

Has any evidence been previously submitted on this case

by any agency? □ Yes

~ No

If known , please list ASCL Case#

Investigating Agency

PINE BLUFF POLICE DEPARTMENT

,w,w.arkansas.aov/crimelab

Agency Case #

12018-045404

Page 3 of 11

PO Box 868

Hope AR 71802

Phone: (870) 722-8530

Fax· (870) 722-8534

ASCL Case#

IInvestigating Officer (Prefix, First, Last)

Tamina Smith

If applicable, please list additional agencies involved

8707302090

Phone

L-,-

Mobile

(optional)

IDate of Offense

Type of Offense

Homicide

11/12/2018

ICounty

of Offense

Jefferson

E-Mail Address

Suspect

Victim

Name (LAST, First)

□

McHan, Brandon

□ YES

□

Booth, Jason

□

□ YES

□

0 YES ONO

□

□ YES

□

0 YES □ NO

Arrested?

DOB

SID/SSN

Race

Sex

ONO

□ YES □ NO

ONO

Juli's Law-If a felony arrest was made, please answer the following:

Was a DNA sample collected on a DNA database kit for CODIS? D Yes □ No Comments:

Were suspect known samples collected (on cotton swabs) to be used as references in this case?

D Yes D No Comments:

If this case involves a sexual assault-Was there a consensual sexual act within the past 96 hours? □ Yes

□ No Comments: - -

Detailed Summary of Crime (Use provided addendum if necessary):

SEE ATTACHED

Important-please note the following:

The Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (ASCL) shall select and use appropriate testing

methods/procedures (please visit the ASCL website www.arkansas .gov/crlmelab to see methods

available).

■

The ASCL reserves the right to transfer evidence to another accredited laboratory when

deemed necessary

• All evidence shall be properly packaged and sealed to prevent contamination and

tampering

• All biologically contaminated evidence must be marked BIOHAZARD

Sharps must be packaged in such a manner as to protect personnel during handling

PE I DNA Requests-Copies of Investigative Reports are requested .

Report attached : D Yes 0 No

If not, please forward to Evidence Rece,vina.

Firearms Submissions-By signing, I hereby certify al/ listed firearms are unloaded.

Signature:

Date:

LAB USE ONLY

■

Document ID: ASCL-FORM-12_WD

Approved By: Black, Ryan, Moran, Cindy

EXHIBIT "A"

Page I of2

USPS

UPS

FedEx

A-48

DHL

Revision Date: 06/16/2015

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

ARKANSAS STATE CRIME LABORATORY

Page 4 of 11

ASCL Case#

tf ;.~ EVIDENCE SUBMISSION FORM

All fields required except where noted

www.arkansas govlcrimelab

Ag ency Case # 2018-045404

Evidence will be analyzed using a priority based system. List the priority of you r evidence for analysis (1= highest)

Evidence#

Physical Evidence/DNA Requests:

Evidence Description

1. List where item was collected

2. List who the item belongs to (if known)

Requested

Service

(refer to codes below]

E-1

WRA 69 spent casing

outside business

DNA/LP/F

E-2

RP 45 Auto spent casing

outside business

DNA/LP/F

E-3

WRA 69 spent casing

outside business

DNA/LP/F

E-4

wee Match 18 spent casing

outside business

DNA/LP/F

E-5

NFeR 40 S&W spent casing

outside business

DNA/LP/F

E-6

WIN 40 S&W spent casing

inside business near front door

DNA/LP/F

E-7

WIN 40 S&W spent casing

inside business near front door

DNA/LP/F

E-8

NFeR 40 S&W spent casing

inside business right of front

door (south side of counter)

DNA/LP/F

E-9

NFeR 40 S&W spent casing

inside business right of front

door (south side of counter)

DNA/LP/F

E-10

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing with possible blood on

inside business north side of

counter

DNA/LP/F

E-11

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing with possible blood on

inside business north side of

counter

DNA/LP/F

E-12

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DNA/LP/F

Type of Analysis Requested :

PLEASE CHECK ALL SPENT CASING FOR DNA. IF LOCATED PLACE INTO CODIS. CHECK ALL SPENT CASING FOR LATENTS AND

ENTER INTO AFIS. PLACE ALL SPENT CASINGS AND PROJECTILES INTO NIBIN AND COMPARE TO WEAPONS SUBMITTED.

Submitting Officer (print):

1----- - - - - -Signature

Requested Serv ice Codes:

DE: Digital Evidence

DA: Drug Analysis

- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - ---1 FA: Firearms/ Tool Marks/ NIBIN

IL: Illicit Laboratories

Date

LP: Latent Prints

PE/DNA: Physical Evidence / DNA

TOX: Toxicology

Document ID: ASCL-FORM-12_ WO

Approved By: Black, Ryan, Moran, Cindy

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 2 of2

A-49

Revision Date: 06/16/2015

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

STATE CRIME LABORATORY

4'·" . ·,. ARKANSAS

EVIDENCE LIST ADDENDUM

CRIME

Page 5 of 11

ASCL Case#

~·

www arkansas.gov/cnmelab

Evidence#

A gency Case #

2018-045404

Physical Evidence/DNA Requests :

Evidence Description

1. List where item was collected

2. List who the item belongs to (if known)

Requested

Service

frefer to codes beJowl

E-13

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-14

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-15

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-16

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-17

NFCR 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-22

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-23

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-24

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-27

Hornady 40 S&W spent casing

inside business north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-28

Projectile

inside business south side of

business

E-29

projectile

inside business south side of

business

E-30

projectile

inside business south side of

business

Type of Analysis Requested :

see first page

Submitting Officer (print):

Signature

Document ID: ASCL-FORM-13 WO

Approved By: Moran, Cindy, Bu~ k, Jerry

Date

EXHIBIT "A"

Page I of I

Reg uested Service Codes:

DE: Digital Evidence

DA: Drug Analysis

FA: Firearms/ Tool Marks/ NIBIN

IL: Illicit Laboratories

LP : Latent Prints

PE/DNA: Physical Evidence / DNA

TOX: Toxicology

Revision Date: 07/03/2013

A-50

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

"~7 ARKANSAS

STATE CRIME LABORATORY

Page 6 of 11

ASCL Case#

t"·~

EVIDENCE LIST ADDENDUM

CliM!

Agency Case #

www arkansas.gov/crl mela!;l

Evidence#

Physical Evidence/DNA Requests:

Evidence Description

1. List where item was collected

2. List who the Item belongs to (if known)

Requested

Service

[refer to codes below]

E-31

Projectile

south side of business inside

DN/LP/FA

E-33

NFCR 40 S&W spent casing

inside business between filing

cabinet and fridge north side of

counter

DN/LP/FA

E-35

NFCR 40 S&W live round

outside southeast side of

business in puddle near fence

DN/LP/FA

BW-1

NFCR 40 S&W shell casing

inside business right door

frame

DN/LP/FA

BW-2

Copper jacket

inside business south wall

BW-3

Projectile

inside business west wall near

exit door

BW-4

Projectile

inside business west wall near

exit door

E-21

Dark green and black in color Glock Gen4 40mm with

Wise Buck and B.McHan on it serial# PVF243 with

magazine

NORTH side of counter

E-36

black in color Smith &Wesson 40mm handgun

Serial# MRB1586 with magazine and 10

WIN 40 S&W live rounds

inside victim's (Jason Booth)

vehicle

Type of Analysis Requested:

SEE FIRST PAGE

Submitting Officer (print):

Signature

Document ID: ASCL-FORM-l3_WD

Approved By: Moran, Cindy, Buck, Jerry

Date

EXHIBIT "A"

Page I of I

Reguested Service Codes:

DE: Digital Evidence

DA: Drug Analysis

FA: Firearms/ Tool Marks/ NIBIN

IL: Illicit Laboratories

LP : Latent Prints

PE/DNA: Physical Evidence / DNA

TOX: Toxicology

Revision Date: 07/03/2013

A-51

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

Page 7 of 11

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory

P.O. Box 8500

3 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72215

Laboratory Services

(501) 227-5747

Investigating Officer/Agency/Address:

lamina Smith

Pine Bluff Police Department

P. 0. Box 8963

Pine Bluff, AR 71611

Suspect(s):

FIREARMS

REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS

ALl-351-T

An ASCLD/LAB Accredited Laboratory

(Since December 13, 2004)

Laboratory Case Number:2018-027335

Agency Case Number:2018-045404

Page 1 of 5

ME Case Number: 1320-18

Victim(s):

Jason Booth

Brandon McHan

Date of Report: 12/07/2018

I do hereby attest and confirm, as specified by A.C.A 12-12-313, that the information listed below is a true and accurate report of the results of analysis

performed on evidence received in a sealed condition at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. The results stated below relate only to the items tested

and represent the interpretations/opinions of the undersigned analyst. This is only an official Arkansas State Crime Laboratory report when reproduced

in full.

ITEMS SUBMITTED:

0001-AA-09-aa

(01 )Damaged copper total metal jacketed bullet, listed as from shirt of Brandon McHan

0001-AA-09-ab

(01 )Damaged copper jacket fragment of a bullet, listed as from right lung of Brandon McHan

0002-AB

(01 )Damaged copper full metal jacketed bullet, listed as E-31

0002-AC

(01 )Damaged copper jacketed hollowpoint bullet, listed as E-28

0002-AD

(01 )Damaged brass full metal jacketed bullet, listed as E-29

0002-AE

(01 )Damaged copper colored steel full metal jacketed bullet, listed as E-30

0002-AF

(01 )Damaged copper jacketed hollowpoint bullet, listed as BW-3

0002-AG

(01 )Damaged copper full metal jacketed bullet, listed as BW-4

0003-AA

(01) .40 S&W caliber, Glock, model 22 Gen 4, semi-automatic pistol, serial number PVF243, listed as

E-21

0004-AA

(01) .40 S&W caliber, Smith & Wesson, model M&P 40c, semi-automatic pistol, serial number MRB1586,

listed as E-36

0004-AB

(10) .40 S&W caliber, Winchester full metal jacket ammunition, listed as E-36

0005-AA

(01 )Expended .45 Auto caliber, Remington cartridge case, listed as E-2

0005-AB

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Federal cartridge case, listed as E-5

0005-AC

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Winchester cartridge case, listed as E-6

0005-AD

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Winchester cartridge case, listed as E-7

0005-AE

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Federal cartridge case, listed as E-8

0005-AF

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Federal cartridge case, listed as E-9

0005-AG

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-10

0005-AH

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case , listed as E-11

0005-AI

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-12

0005-AJ

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-13

0005-AK

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-14

0005-AL

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-15

EXHIBIT "A"

A-52

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

Page 8 of 11

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory

P.O . Box 8500

3 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72215

Laboratory Services

(501) 227-5747

Investigating Offici,r/Agency/Address:

Tamina Smith

Pine Bluff Police Department

P. 0 . Box 8963

Pine Bluff, AR 71611

Suspect(s):

FIREARMS

REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS

ALl-351-T

An ASCLD/L.AB Accredited Laboratory

(Since December 13, 200./)

Laboratory Case Number:2018-027335

Agency Case NumbeQ018-045404

Page 2 of 5

ME Case Number: 1320-1 B

Victim(s):

Jason Booth

Brandon McHan

Date of Report: 12/07/2018

I do hereby attest and confirm, as

specified by A.C.A 12-12-313, that the information listed below is a true and accurate report of the results of analysis

performed on evidence received in a sealed condition at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. The results stated below relate only to the items tested

and represent the interpretations/opinions of the undersigned analyst. This is only an official Arkansas State Crime Laboratory report when reproduced

in full

0005-AM

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-16

0005-AN

(01)Expended .40 S&W caliber, Federal cartridge case, listed as E-17

0005-AO

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-22

0005-AP

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-23

0005-AQ

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-24

0005-AR

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Hornady cartridge case, listed as E-27

0005-AS

(01)Expended .40 S&W caliber, Federal cartridge case , listed as E-33

0005-AT

(01) .40 S&W caliber, Federal full metal jacket ammunition, listed as E-35

0005-AU

(01 )Expended .40 S&W caliber, Federal cartridge case, listed as BW-1

0005-AV

(01 )Expended .45 Auto caliber, Winchester cartridge case, listed as E-1

0005-AW

(01 )Expended .45 Auto caliber, Winchester cartridge case, listed as E-3

0005-AX

(01 )Expended .45 Auto caliber, Winchester cartridge case, listed as E-4

0005-AY

(01 )Damaged copper jacket of a bullet, listed as BW-2

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION:

The 01-AA-09-aa and 02-AB bullets were microscopically compared to one another and to bullets test fired through the

barrel of the 04-AA pistol with INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS. Due to damage and limited individual characteristics, the two

bullets could neither be identified nor eliminated as having been fired through the same firearm barrel or as having

been fired through the barrel of the Smith & Wesson pistol.

The 01-AA-09-aa and 02-AB bullets were ELIMINATED as having been fired through the barrel of the 03-AA pistol based

on differences in class characteristics .

The 02-AC, 02-AF, and 05-AY bullets and jacket of a bullet were microscopically compared to one another and to bullets

test fired through the barrel of the 03-AA pistol with INCONCLUSIVE RE SULTS . Due to damage and limited individual

characteristics, the two bullets and one jacket of a bullet could neither be identified nor eliminated as having been fired

through the same firearm barrel or as having been fired through the barrel of the Glock pistol.

EXHIBIT "A"

A-53

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

Page 9 of 11

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory

P.O. Box 8500

3 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72215

Laboratory Services

(501) 227-5747

Investigating Officer/Agency/Address:

Tamina Smith

Pine Bluff Police Department

P. 0 . Box 8963

Pine Bluff, AR 71611

Suspect(s) :

FIREARMS

REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS

ALl-351-T

An ASCLO/LAB Accrediled Laboratory

(Since December 13, 200,1)

Laboratory Case Number: 2018-027335

Page 3 of 5

Agency Case Number:2018-045404

ME Case Number: 1320-18

Victim(s) :

Jason Booth

Brandon McHan

Date of Report: 12/07/2018

I do hereby attest and confirm, as specified by A .C.A 12-12-313, that the information listed below is a true and accurate report of the results of analysis

performed on evidence received in a sealed condition at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. The results stated below relate only to the items tested

and represent the interpretations /opin ions of the undersigned analyst. This is only an official Arkansas State Crime Laboratory report when reproduced

in full .

The 02-AC, 02-AF, and 05-AY bullets and jacket of a bullet were ELIMINATED as having been fired through the barrel of

the 04-AA pistol based on differences in class characteristics.

The 01-AA-09-aa and 02-AB bullets were ELIMINATED as having been fired through the same firearm barrel(s) as the

02-AC, 02-AF, and 05-AY bullets and jacket of a bullet based on differences in class characteristics .

The 02-AD , 02-AE. and 02-AG bullets were microscopically compared to one another with INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS .

Due to damage and limited individual characteristics, the three bullets could neither be identified nor eliminated as

having been fired through the same firearm barrel.

The 01-AA-09-ab jacket fragment of a bullet was microscopically compared to the 01-AA-09-aa, 02-AB , 02-AC, 02-AD ,

02-A E, 02-AF, 02-AG, and 05-AY bullets, bullets test fired through the barrel of the 03-AA pistol, and bullets test fired

through the barrel of the 04-AA pistol with INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS. Due to damage and limited individual

characteristics, the jacket fragment of a bullet could neither be identified nor eliminated as having been fired through

the same firearm barrel as any of the seven bullets and one jacket of a bullet, through the barrel of the Glock pistol, or

through the barrel of the Smith & Wesson pistol.

The 01-AA-09-aa and 02-AB bullets are .40 caliber class bullets fired through a conventionally rifled barrel with five lands

and five grooves with a right twist. Some manufacturers that market firearms with similar general rifling characteristics

include, but are not limited to, Charter Arms and Smith & Wesson . However, any firearm recovered in the course of this

investigation should be submitted to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory for comparison examinations .

The 02-AC bullet and 05-AY jacket of a bullet are .40 caliber class bullets fired through a polygonally rifled barrel with six

lands and six grooves with a right twist. Some manufacturers that market firearms with similar general rifling

characteristics include , but are not limited to , Bersa , Glock, Heckler & Koch, IMI , Kahr Arms, and Vektor. However, any

firearm recovered in the course of this investigation should be submitted to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory for

comparison examinations.

The 02-AF bullet is a .40 caliber class bullet fired through a polygonally rifled barrel. Some manufacturers that market

firearms with similar general rifling characteristics include, but are not limited to, Bersa, Dornaus & Dixon, Glock, Heckler

& Koch, IMI, Kahr Arms, and Vektor. However, any firearm recovered in the course of this investigation should be

submitted to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory for comparison examinations .

EXHIBIT "A"

A-54

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

Page 10 of 11

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory

P.O. Box 8500

3 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72215

Laboratory Services

(501) 227-5747

Investigating Officer/Agency/Address:

FIREARMS

REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS

ALl-351-T

An ASCLD/LAB Accredited Laboratory

(Since December 13, 200.:(J

laboratory Case Number:2018-027335

Agency Case Number:2018-045404

Tamina Smith

Pine Bluff Police Department

P. 0 . Box 8963

Pine Bluff, AR 71611

Suspect(s):

Page 4 of 5

ME Case Number: 1320-16

Victim(s):

Jason Booth

Brandon McHan

Date of Report: 12/07/2018

I do hereby attest and confirm, as specified by A.C.A 12-12-313, that the information listed below is a true and accurate report of the results of analysis

performed on evidence received in a sealed condition at the Arkansas State Crime laboratory. The results stated below relate only to the items tested

and represent the interpretations/opinions of the undersigned analyst. This is only an official Arkansas State Cnme Laboratory report when reproduced

in full.

The 02-AD. 02-AE. and 02-AG bullets are .45 caliber class bullets fired through a polygonally rifled barrel with eight lands

and eight grooves with a right twist. Some manufacturers that market firearms with similar general rifling characteristics

include, but are not limited to, Bersa and Glock. However, any firearm recovered in the course of this investigation

should be submitted to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory for comparison examinations.

The 01-AA-09-ab jacket fragment of a bullet is too damaged to determine general rifling characteristics.

The 05-AA. 05-AV. 05-AW. and 05-AX expended cartridge cases were microscopically compared to one another with

POSITIVE RESULTS. The four expended .45 Auto caliber cartridge cases were fired in the same firearm.

The 05-AB, 05-AC . 05-AD. 05-AE. 05-AF. 05-AN. 05-AS . and 05-AU expended cartridge cases were microscopically

compared to one another with POSITIVE RESULTS. The eight expended .40 S&W caliber cartridge cases were fired in

the same firearm.

The 05-AB. 05-AC. 05-AD. 05-AE, 05-AF. 05-AN. 05-AS. and 05-AU expended cartridge cases were microscopically

compared to cartridge cases test fired in the 04-AA pistol with NEGATIVE RESULTS . Due to the sufficient disagreement

of individual characteristics, the eight expended cartridge cases were not fired in the Smith & Wesson pistol.

The 05-AG, 05-AH . 05-AI. 05-AJ. 05-AK. 05-AL, 05-AM, 05-AO. 05-AP, 05-AO . and 05-AR expended cartridge cases

were microscopically compared to cartridge cases test fired in the 03-AA pistol with POSITIVE RESULTS. The eleven

expended cartridge cases were fired in the Glock pistol.

No tests were conducted on or with the 04-AB and 05-AT ammunition.

A "NIBIN HIT LETTER" was generated on December 3, 2018, for the following evidence: 2018-027335 05-AB, 05-AC.

OScAD, 05-AE. 05-AF. 05-AN. 05-AS . and 05-AU (Pine Bluff PD case number 2018-045404) and 2018-028848 01-AA

(Pine Bluff PD case number 2018-047529) .

EXHIBIT "A"

A-55

Case 4:19-cr-00580-JM

Document 104-1

Filed 06/15/23

Page 11 of 11

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory

P.O. Box 8500

3 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72215

Laboratory Services

(501) 227-5747

Investigating OfficerfAgency/Address:

FIREARMS

REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS

ALI.J51-T

An ASCLDILAB Accrediled Laboratory

( Since December 13, 200,1)

Laboratory Case Number:2018-027335

Page 5 of 5

Agency Case Number:2018-045404

Tamina Smith

Pine Bluff Police Department

P. 0 . Box 8963

ME Case Number: 1320-18

Pine Bluff, AR 71611

Suspect(s):

Victim(s):

Jason Booth

Brandon McHan

Date of Report: 12/07/2018

I do hereby attest and confirm, as specified by A.C.A 12-12-313, that the information listed below is a true and accurate report of the results of analysis

performed on evidence received in a sealed condition at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. The results stated below relate only to the items tested

and represent the interpretations/opinions of the undersigned analyst. This is only an official Arkansas State Crime Laboratory report when reproduced

in full.

The 2018-027335 05-AB. 05-AC . 05-AD . 05-AE, 05-AF, 05-AN. 05-AS . and 05-AU expended cartridge cases were

microscopically compared to the 2018-028848 01-AA expended cartridge case with POSITIVE RESULTS. The nine

expended cartridge cases were fired in the same firearm.

HP~

Jennifer P. Floyd, Firearm and Toolmark Examiner

jenni. f/oyd@crimelab.arkansas.gov

EXHIBIT "A"

A-56

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.