United States v. Kevin Loren Daniels

United States v. Daniels, No. 24-3260 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 7, 2026 · No. 24-3260

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Kevin Daniels’s convictions for Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and felon-in-possession of a firearm, as well as his 181-month sentence. The court rejected challenges concerning his Miranda waiver, denial of substitute counsel, alleged discovery violations involving GPS evidence, and other constitutional, evidentiary, instructional, and sentencing issues. Judge White concurred in part and dissented in part.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Eric E. Murphy; Helene N. White; Joan L. Larsen
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
January 7, 2026
Docket number
24-3260
Procedural posture
Daniels appealed his jury convictions for Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and felon-in-possession of a firearm, as well as his 181-month sentence. He raised constitutional, evidentiary, instructional, and Sentencing Guidelines challenges.
Standard of review
Miranda waiver factual findings are reviewed for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and the ultimate voluntariness determination de novo; denial of a request for substitute appointed counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion; discovery rulings are ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion, with plain-error review potentially applying to an unpreserved theory; unpreserved jury-instruction claims are reviewed for plain error; sentencing guideline legal questions are reviewed de novo and factual findings for clear error; guideline errors that do not affect the ultimate guideline range are harmless.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Kevin Loren Daniels v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

miranda rightsright to counseldiscovery criminalsentencingcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal proceduresentencingappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Daniels knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights despite having used cocaine and refusing to sign the waiver form.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Daniels's request for substitute appointed counsel shortly before trial.
  3. Whether the government violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 by failing to disclose the results of a detective's Google Maps search using GPS coordinates, and whether suppression was an appropriate remedy.
  4. Whether the Hobbs Act jury instructions plainly erred by stating that an actual effect on interstate commerce was unnecessary and constructively amended the indictment.
  5. Whether the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines physical-restraint enhancement.
  6. Whether the district court properly applied the bodily-injury enhancement based on the victims' exposure to mace.
  7. Whether the district court properly included Daniels's prior Section 924(c) conviction in his criminal-history score even though the conviction was later vacated.
  8. Whether any error in counting Daniels's prior Ohio reckless-operation conviction was harmless because it did not change his criminal-history category.

Holdings

  1. Daniels knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and the district court properly denied his motion to suppress his custodial statements.
  2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daniels's request for new appointed counsel.
  3. Even assuming the government violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to suppress the detective's GPS-coordinate testimony.
  4. The Hobbs Act instructions did not constitute plain error or a constructive amendment of the indictment.
  5. The district court properly applied the two-level physical-restraint enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B).
  6. The district court properly applied the two-level bodily-injury enhancement because the victims suffered painful and obvious injuries when Daniels sprayed mace directly into their faces.
  7. The district court properly included three criminal-history points for Daniels's prior Section 924(c) conviction because, at the time of sentencing, no court had reversed or vacated the conviction or ruled it constitutionally invalid in a prior case.
  8. Any error in counting Daniels's prior Ohio reckless-operation conviction was harmless because removing the conviction would have reduced his criminal-history score from six to five but would not have changed his Criminal History Category III or his Guidelines range.
  9. The court declined to exercise its discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to remand for resentencing despite the later vacatur of Daniels's prior Section 924(c) conviction.

Key quotations

All told, the totality of the circumstances—including Daniels’s verbal waiver, demeanor, and rapport—establishes that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. (9)
In sum, the district court reasonably refused to suppress the challenged evidence because Daniels showed neither bad faith nor prejudice. (15)
We affirm. (29)

Factual background

On Black Friday in 2021, Daniels robbed a T-Mobile store in Columbus, Ohio, while brandishing a firearm, forcing two employees into a back room, taking phones and money, and spraying the employees with mace before fleeing. An employee had placed a GPS-tracked bait phone among the stolen phones, allowing police to track the getaway vehicle and arrest Daniels after a high-speed chase. Police recovered a loaded handgun, mace, stolen phones, cash, a black hooded sweatshirt, and a blue mask from Daniels's vehicle. Daniels later waived his Miranda rights and made statements suggesting that he committed the robbery.

Procedural history

A jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio convicted Daniels on three counts arising from an armed robbery of a T-Mobile store. The district court sentenced him to 181 months' imprisonment, including 97 months on the robbery and felon-in-possession counts and a consecutive seven-year mandatory minimum on the firearm count. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Judge White concurred in part and dissented from the refusal to remand for resentencing after a prior Section 924(c) conviction used in calculating Daniels's criminal-history score was later vacated.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…