US v. Mario Douglas

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00310-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998680281].. [09-5026]

Appeal: 09-5026

Document: 27

Date Filed: 09/19/2011

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO SUNDRAY DOUGLAS, a/k/a Bird,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00310-WO-1)

Submitted:

September 6, 2011

Decided:

September 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-5026

Document: 27

Date Filed: 09/19/2011

Page: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Mario Sundray Douglas appeals his 117-month sentence
for

possession

with

intent

to

distribute

cocaine

base,

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006).

in

For the

reasons set forth below, we vacate Douglas’ sentence and remand
for resentencing.
On
conviction

appeal,
for

Douglas

possession

argues

with

that

intent

to

his

prior

sell

and

state
deliver

cocaine was not punishable under North Carolina law by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year and therefore he was improperly
designated

as

a

career

offender.

Because

Douglas

did

not

challenge his career offender designation before the district
court, we review his claim for plain error.

United States v.

Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 184 (4th Cir. 2010), petition for cert.
filed (Mar. 8, 2011).
Douglas was sentenced consistent with our decision in
United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005), which
held that, in determining whether a conviction is for a crime
punishable by a prison term exceeding one year, a district court
must

consider

the

maximum

aggravated

sentence

that

would

be

imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible
criminal history.

Id.

Although Douglas was sentenced to only

eight to ten months of imprisonment for the state drug offense,
he was found guilty of a Class H felony under North Carolina
2

Appeal: 09-5026

Document: 27

Date Filed: 09/19/2011

Page: 3 of 5

law, which carried a maximum penalty of more than one year of
imprisonment.

See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 90-95(a); 15A-1340.17(c),

(d) (LexisNexis 2009).
Thus,

because

under

North

Carolina

law

the

maximum

aggravated sentence that could be imposed for felony possession
with intent to sell and deliver cocaine upon a defendant with
the

worst

Douglas

possible

qualified

history

as

a

exceeded

career

one

offender

year,
as

under

defined

Harp,

in

U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1(a), 4B1.2(b) (2008). 1

We

recently overruled Harp, however, with our en banc decision in
United States v. Simmons, No. 08-4475, 2011 WL 3607266, at *3
(4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011), holding that a North Carolina offense
may

not

be

classified

as

a

felony

based

upon

the

maximum

aggravated sentence that could be imposed upon a repeat offender
if

the

sentence.

individual

defendant

was

not

eligible

for

such

a

Id. at *8.
Based on our review of the record, we find that an

offender possessing the same prior criminal record as Douglas at
the

time

of

his

offense

could

not

have

received

a

sentence

exceeding one year under North Carolina’s structured sentencing

1

Douglas concedes that his prior state conviction for
felony discharge of a weapon into occupied property was properly
considered a predicate conviction for career offender purposes
pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1(a).

3

Appeal: 09-5026

Document: 27

Date Filed: 09/19/2011

N.C.

scheme.

See

therefore

conclude

Gen.
the

Stat.

Page: 4 of 5

§ 15A-1340-17(c),

district

court

erred

(d).

in

We

sentencing

Douglas as a career offender and that the error was plain. 2
Moreover, in light of the downward departure that was granted by
the district court at sentencing, it appears that Douglas may
well

have

received

a

lower

sentence

if

he

had

not

been

erroneously designated as a career offender, 3 and we therefore
conclude

that

the

plain

error

affected

Douglas’

substantial

rights and that “there exists a nonspeculative basis to infer
prejudice

that

‘seriously

affects

the

fairness,

public reputation of judicial proceedings.’”

integrity

or

United States v.

Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 192 (4th Cir.) (citing United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2943
(2011).
Accordingly,

we

vacate

Douglas’

sentence,

including

the term of supervised release, 4 and remand for resentencing in
accordance with Simmons.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2

The district court, of course, did not have the benefit of
Simmons at the time of Douglas’ sentencing.
3

We express no opinion on the ultimate sentence Douglas may
receive on remand.
4

Because we vacate the sentence in its entirety, we find it
unnecessary to consider Douglas’ argument that his eight-year
term of supervised release was unreasonable.

4

Appeal: 09-5026

Document: 27

materials

before

Date Filed: 09/19/2011

the

court

and

Page: 5 of 5

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

5