US v. Quentin Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00344-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998754826].. [10-4448]

Appeal: 10-4448

Document: 48

Date Filed: 12/30/2011

Page: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUENTIN JEROME DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00344-RBH-1)

Submitted:

November 18, 2011

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

December 30, 2011

KEENAN,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren Scott Haley, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4448

Document: 48

Date Filed: 12/30/2011

Page: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Quentin

Jerome

Davis

pled

guilty

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and
cocaine base from October 2005 to March 2009 in violation of 21
U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)

district

court’s

and

846.

On

application

of

appeal,
the

Davis

challenges

Sentencing

the

Guidelines,

arguing that the district court erred by assigning one criminal
history point for a March 16, 2006, state conviction for Simple
Possession of Marijuana rather than treating the prior offense
as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes.

We affirm.

At sentencing, the district court held Davis accountable
for 441 grams of crack cocaine and 3.157 kilograms of cocaine,
yielding a base offense level of 32.

The court awarded Davis a

2-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3E1.1(a) for a
total offense level of 30.

The sentencing court assigned Davis

a criminal history category of II, based on two prior state
court convictions, including a March 16, 2006, South Carolina
conviction for simple possession of marijuana and driving under
suspension for which Davis received a fine in magistrate court.
The resulting advisory sentencing range was 108 to 135 months;
however, because 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) prescribes a statutory
minimum of 10 years, the effective sentencing range was 120 to

2

Appeal: 10-4448

135

Document: 48

months.

Date Filed: 12/30/2011

The

district

court

Page: 3 of 6

imposed

a

sentence

of

120

months.
Davis objected to the assignment of one criminal history
point for the March 16, 2006, simple possession of marijuana/DUS
conviction, arguing that because “the indictment involves a drug
conspiracy from at least October of 2005 up until the date of
the Indictment,
Driving

Under

which

was

Suspension

on

March

and

4th

Simple

of

2009,

Possession

.

of

.

.

the

Marijuana

[offense] . . . should also be considered conduct as to the
underlying
rejected
offense

conspiracy.”

this
for

argument,

simple

J.A.

28-29.

concluding

possession

of

that

The
the

marijuana

district
March

was

16,

not

court
2006,

part

and

parcel of the distribution conspiracy charged in the indictment;
the court stated, “[t]his conspiracy involved cocaine base and
powder cocaine.

It did not involve marijuana” and also noted

that “Simple Possession implies a user amount.”
On

appeal,

Davis

raises

the

same

J.A. 31.

challenge

to

the

assignment of a criminal history point to the prior conviction
for simple possession of marijuana.

According to Davis, without

the point for this conviction, he would have been placed in
Criminal History Category I and would have been eligible for the
“safety valve” reduction in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
Prior sentences may be used to determine the defendant's
criminal history category.

See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.
3

However, §

Appeal: 10-4448

4A1.1

Document: 48

excludes

Date Filed: 12/30/2011

convictions

for

Page: 4 of 6

conduct

that

“relevant conduct” to the instant offense.
cmt. n.1.

qualifies

as

See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2

Relevant conduct is conduct that was part of the same

course of conduct or a common scheme or plan as the offense of
conviction, and it may be used to increase the defendant’s base
offense

level.

See

U.S.S.G.

§

1B1.3(a).

In

drug

cases,

relevant conduct “often includes a broader range of conduct than
the

conduct

underlying

the

offense

of

conviction”

since

it

consists of “‘all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the
same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense
of conviction.’”

United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 358 (4th

Cir. 2010) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2)).
The district court’s conclusion that the simple possession
offense was not “part of the same course of conduct” as that
charged in the underlying offense was a factual determination.
The

court

reviews

a

district

court’s

factual

concerning relevant conduct for clear error.
v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 313 (4th Cir. 2004).

determinations

See United States
If the district

court’s account is plausible in light of the entire record, we
will not reverse the finding simply because we would have come
to a different conclusion.

See United States v. Stevenson, 396

F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005).
The district court’s conclusion that the prior offense was
not part of the instant conspiracy does not amount to clear
4

Appeal: 10-4448

Document: 48

error.

Date Filed: 12/30/2011

Page: 5 of 6

Davis argues that the prior offense should be classified

as relevant conduct because it occurred during the conspiracy
period,

involved

suppliers

who

also

participated

in

the

conspiracy, and involved a common purpose, i.e., the resale of
controlled substances for profit.
occurs

during

the

conspiracy

The fact that another offense
timeframe,

however,

convert it into relevant conduct automatically.

does

not

See U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.2 cmt. n.1 (“‘Prior sentence’ means a sentence imposed
prior

to

sentencing

on

the

instant

offense,

other

than

sentence for conduct that is part of the instant offense.
sentence

imposed

after

the

defendant's

commencement

of

a
A
the

instant offense, but prior to sentencing on the instant offense,
is a prior sentence if it was for conduct other than conduct
that

was

(internal

part

of

citation

the

instant

omitted)).

offense.”
The

(emphasis

underlying

added)

distribution

conspiracy was a cocaine-only conspiracy; the prior conviction
involved the possession of marijuana.
court

observed,

“simple

the

possession”

fact

that

suggested

amount for personal use.

the
the

Moreover, as the district
prior

Davis

conviction
was

holding

was
a

for

small

See State v. Adams, 352 S.E.2d 483,

485-86 (S.C. 1987) (explaining that “simple possession” involves
an amount less than necessary to trigger the presumption of an
intent

to

distribute).

Because

these

conclusions

were

reasonable and plausible in light of the record, we will not
5

Appeal: 10-4448

Document: 48

Date Filed: 12/30/2011

Page: 6 of 6

disturb the district court’s determination that the prior simple
possession offense did not constitute relevant conduct. *
Based
district
facts

on

the

court.

and

legal

foregoing,
We

dispense

contentions

we

affirm

with
are

oral

the

judgment

argument

adequately

of

the

because

the

presented

in

the

materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

In light of this conclusion, we need not address the
question of whether the appeal waiver clause contained in the
plea agreement is enforceable.

6