PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCUS ROOSEVELT TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 21-4422

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCUS ROOSEVELT TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00106-CCB-6)

Argued: October 26, 2022 Decided: March 10, 2023 USCA4 Appeal: 19-7246 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 21

Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and Sherri A. LYDON, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Lydon joined. Judge Lydon wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

ARGUED: Gerald Chester Ruter, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, Appellant. Patrick Garrett Selwood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Leo J. Wise, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 19-7246 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/10/2023 Pg: 3 of 21

TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

Federal law says a district court “shall order” certain defendants to “make restitution

to the victim of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). Here, a person convicted of robbery

insists he should not have to make restitution because at least some of the cash and personal

property he stole were proceeds of illegal drug sales and the government failed to prove

what (if any) portion was not so tainted. That argument has no basis in the statutory text.

We thus affirm.

I.

Marcus Taylor was a detective in Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force, a unit charged

with investigating firearms-related crimes. After a trial where the government showed

Taylor and some of his colleagues stole money, drugs, and other items on the job, a jury

convicted him of Hobbs Act robbery and racketeering offenses. The district court sentenced

Taylor to 18 years of imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. This

Court affirmed. See United States v. Taylor, 942 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2019).

This appeal challenges the district court’s later-imposed restitution order. The court

ordered Taylor to make restitution to two people from whom he and his confederates stole

cash, personal property, and illegal drugs. The district court did not order restitution for the

drugs. It did, however, order Taylor to pay $228,304 in restitution for the cash and personal

property.

Taylor claims the restitution order is unwarranted and unsupported. The people to

whom the court ordered Taylor to make restitution testified against him under grants of

immunity. Both admitted to selling drugs, and one said at least some of the stolen cash—

3 USCA4 Appeal: 19-7246 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/10/2023 Pg: 4 of 21

$15,970 taken from a closet—came

Click Here to Read the rest of this document