Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00080-MOC-DSC-1)
Argued:
Decided:
permitted
under
North
Carolina
law,
Appellant
offender
Guidelines
enhancement
(Guidelines),
in
see
the
United
U.S.S.G.
States
4B1.1,
Sentencing
the
district
single
sentence
enhancement.
for
purposes
of
the
career
offender
resentencing.
I.
In July 2004, Davis used a handgun to rob a Burger King in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
to
this
robbery,
Davis
used
gun
to
A day
assault
one
the February 2005 robberies, Davis was charged with five counts
of robbery with a dangerous weapon, among other things.
*
robbery,
Consistent
with
and
the
five
plea
counts
for
agreement,
the
the
2005
charges
robberies.
were
to
be
range
applicable
to
Davis,
the
In calculating the
probation
officer
Carolina
robbery
offenses.
Accordingly,
the
probation
sentencing,
Davis
objected
to
the
career
offender
opposed
the
motion,
asserting
that
prior
The
felony
district
objection,
court
and
agreed
applied
with
the
the
Government,
enhancement.
Based
denied
on
court
then
sentenced
Davis
to
The
within-Guidelines
language
cannot
of
be
the
Guidelines,
counted
interpretation
of
as
the
single
separate
consolidated
sentences.
Guidelines
de
novo.
We
sentence
review
United
States
the
v.
U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a).
The sole
as
two
prior
felony
convictions
as
defined
by
the
Guidelines.
Under the Guidelines, the existence of two prior felony
convictions alone is not dispositive; the defendant must also
have
at
least
Specifically,
two
the
satisfied if:
prior
two
sentences
prior
felony
for
those
convictions.
convictions
prong
is
substance
offense;
and
(2)
the
sentences
for
at
concedes
of
either
that
a
the
former
crime
of
requirement--felony
violence
or
controlled
substance--is
met
convictions.
He
separately
because
he
contends,
counted
has
at
however,
sentences
for
the
least
the
two
prior
latter
robbery
requirement--
convictions--is
not
met
as
noted
above,
the
plain
language
of
U.S.S.G.
offender
prior felonies.
if
he
received
sentences
for
at
least
two
state felonies.
Under North Carolinas statutory provision for [m]ultiple
convictions, where an individual is convicted of more than one
offense, the general rule is that all sentences of imprisonment
run
concurrently
with
any
other
sentences
expressly
of
imprisonment.
the
sentence
as
such.
Id.
15A-1340.15(b)
(emphasis
added).
Thus,
when
North
his
prior
2004
and
2005
offenses,
Davis
received
we
should
disregard
the
plain
meaning
of
the
Guidelines.
The Government contends that we have decided this issue
before, stating that [i]t is well established in this circuit
that
cases
consolidated
for
sentencing
under
North
Carolina
F.3d
opinions.
532,
539
(4th
Cir.
1999),
and
few
unpublished
as
career
offender
because
his
two
prior
1987
191
Id.
(1999)).
(quoting
U.S.S.G.
4A1.2,
application
n.
new
rule,
separately
arrest.
if
which
the
provides
offenses
that
were
two
prior
separated
by
sentences
an
count
intervening
two
separate
sentences
for
his
two
prior
offenses,
sentencing.
The
prior
offenses
in
Huggins
occurred
in
eff. Oct. 1, 1994; see also State v. Branch, 518 S.E.2d 213, 215
(N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that as a matter of law, offenses
that were committed prior to 1 October 1994, the effective date
of the Structured Sentencing Act, cannot be consolidated for
judgment under the Act).
does not address the textual issue raised in this case, an issue
that could not have been raised at the time.
The
Huggins
term
consolidated
for
does
not
to
equate
consolidated judgment).
sentencing
consolidated
as
addressed
sentence
in
(or
consolidation
is
merely
procedural
mechanism
used
defendant.
consolidated
sentence
is
distinct
from
As such,
consolidated
proceeding.
D.
The language of the Guidelines is plain.
the
basic
principle
that
there
must
be
It begins with
more
than
one
prior
See id.
4A1.2(a)(2).
We
hold
today
that
where
defendant
receives
North
Carolinas
judgment
as
to
the
seriousness
of
by
North
Carolina
judge,
merely
because
the
United
States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, 249 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
10
Applying
this
test,
we
find
that
the
career
offender
career
offender
enhancement
requiring
two
prior
felony
the
2004
consolidated
and
2005
sentence.
robberies,
Because
the
Davis
received
Government
failed
single
to
put
See
United States v. Stewart, 49 F.3d 121, 123 n.3 (4th Cir. 1995)
(A federal court construing the federal Sentencing Guidelines
need not turn to state law.).
to
consolidate
sentences,
while
other
defendants
We are
not persuaded.
As a general matter, the plain meaning of the Guidelines
trumps policy considerations.
Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240 (1989) (The plain meaning of
legislation should be conclusive, except in the rare cases in
11
at
odds
with
the
intentions
of
its
Davis
points
Guidelines,
out,
such
as
there
are
drafters.)
Moreover,
other
mechanisms
within
the
and
variances,
which
the
departures
because
Davis
had
only
one
prior
qualifying
12