US v. Lejuanne Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00369-CCB-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998477628] [10-4536]

US v. Lejuanne Walker

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4536 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/03/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. LEJUANNE WALKER, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00369-CCB-2) Submitted: November 9, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven F. Wrobel, ROSENBERG|MARTIN|GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Cheryl L. Crumpton, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4536 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/03/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Lejuanne Walker appeals his 144-month sentence

following a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). On appeal, Walker argues that the district

court committed procedural error when it classified him as a career offender and failed to explicitly address his request that the career offender guidelines be rejected based on their racially disproportionate impact. We "deferential review the district court's sentence Gall under v. a

abuse-of-discretion

standard."

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). must first examine the sentence to

In conducting this review, we for "significant (or procedural improperly

error,"

including

"failing

calculate

calculating) the Guidelines range . . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence." Id. at 51. In reviewing the

district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. 2009). Section 4B1.1(a) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir.

Manual ("USSG") (2009) provides that a defendant is a career offender if, among other conditions, he "has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled 2

Case: 10-4536 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/03/2010

Page: 3

substance

offense."

USSG

§

4B1.1(a)(3).

A

"controlled

substance offense" is a federal or state offense, punishable by more than one year in prison, "that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled

substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, § 4B1.2(b). import, export, distribute, or dispense." USSG

To determine whether a conviction qualifies as a

prior offense for purposes of the career offender guidelines, a sentencing court must take a categorical approach, examining

only the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 17

(2005); see also United States v. Dean, 605 F.3d 169, 175 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that the categorical approach has been extended to the career offender provisions). Here, the district court did not err in determining that Walker qualified as a career offender for purposes of the Guidelines. 2002 Walker's career offender designation was based on a conviction, the validity of which Walker

Maryland

questions, and a 2006 Maryland conviction.

Specifically, Walker

suggests that a notation made by the state court on the record referring ambiguity to to possible the 2002 probation before judgment lends enough the The

conviction's

felony

status

that

district court should have disregarded that conviction. 3

Case: 10-4536 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/03/2010

Page: 4

district court's determination, however, was consistent with the categorical approach. The court considered the state court

record, the electronic docket, and the definition of the prior offense to determine that Walker did, in fact, plead guilty to a qualifying offense. court's notation Further, the court concluded that the state reflected the possibility of probation

only

before judgment upon a motion for reconsideration; because the state court took no action to impose probation before judgment, the district court correctly held that the 2002 conviction was a felony for career offender purposes. Walker also argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his argument that it should disregard the career offender guidelines because of their error, racially a disproportionate court must effect. "state To in avoid open procedural court" the

sentencing

particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. States court's v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, not 328 (4th Cir. 2009). it

United The be

explanation

need

be

exhaustive;

must

"sufficient `to satisfy the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.'" United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).

4

Case: 10-4536 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/03/2010

Page: 5

The district court in this case explicitly considered the seriousness of the offense, Walker's criminal history and characteristics, convictions. It and made the an nonviolent nature of Walker's and its

individualized

assessment

explanation sufficiently reflected that assessment. 551 U.S. at 356 ("[W]e cannot read the statute

Cf. Rita, (or our

precedent) as insisting upon a full opinion in every case. . . . Sometimes a judicial opinion responds to every argument;

sometimes it does not. . . .

The law leaves much, in this Moreover,

respect, to the judge's own professional judgment.").

it appears from the court's explanation of its chosen sentence that it did the from consider career the Walker's policy-based in argument deciding against to Thus, vary we

applying downward

offender applicable

guidelines Guidelines

range.

conclude that the district court's explanation was sufficient and did not constitute procedural error resulting in an

unreasonable sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

5