US v. Lewis Alston

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00095-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998689183].. [10-4552]

Appeal: 10-4552

Document: 36

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4552

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LEWIS ALSTON,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00095-FL-1)

Submitted:

September 19, 2011

Decided:

September 29, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4552

Document: 36

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Lewis Alston pleaded guilty to possession with intent
to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and maintaining a place for the
purpose of distributing and using crack cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (2006).

The district court determined

that Alston was accountable for 22.28 grams of crack cocaine,
and that his advisory guideline range was 120 to 150 months’
imprisonment.
imprisonment.

The

court

sentenced

Alston

to

150

months’

Alston appeals, arguing that the district court

erred by converting $928 in cash that was found in Alston’s
apartment to its crack cocaine equivalent and adding it to the
13 grams of crack cocaine actually found.

He also argues that

he should not have been subjected to an enhanced sentence under
21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006), because his prior state convictions did
not qualify as felonies.

Finally, he argues that the sentence

imposed was substantively unreasonable.

For the reasons that

follow, we affirm the judgment, vacate the sentence, and remand
for resentencing.
First, we find no clear error in the district court’s
determination that the money found in Alston’s apartment was
attributable

to

his

drug

trafficking

activities.

United

States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147 (4th Cir. 2009) (providing
standard).

The $928 included the $20 that had been used by a
2

Appeal: 10-4552

Document: 36

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 3 of 5

confidential informant to buy drugs from Alston.
district
apartment

court

noted

suggesting

that

there

Alston’s

was

evidence

involvement

in

Further, the
throughout

the

drug

the

trade,

including the 13 grams of crack cocaine, a video surveillance
system

set

closet.

up

outside

the

apartment,

and

a

firearm

in

the

Finally, the district court pointed out that the money

could credibly be linked to drugs because Alston was unemployed
and

had

findings

no

visible

are

not

means
clearly

of

support.

erroneous.

The

district

See

U.S.

court’s

Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, cmt. n.12 (2007); United States v.
Sampson, 140 F.3d 585, 592 (4th Cir. 1998).
Alston’s

second

argument,

however,

is

meritorious.

Because Alston did not raise this argument below, we review for
plain error.
Cir. 2010).

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577-78 (4th
To prevail under the plain error standard, Alston

must show that plain error by the district court affected his
substantial

rights.

Id.

at

577,

580.

The

district

court

applied an enhanced sentence to Alston, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A.
§§

841(b)(1)(B), 851 (West 1999 & Supp. 2011), because Alston

had two prior state convictions, one for a Class I felony for
which he had a prior record level of I, and one for a Class I
felony with a prior record level of II.
from

the

presumptive

range

in

both

3

Alston was sentenced

cases,

and

was

therefore

Appeal: 10-4552

Document: 36

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 4 of 5

subject to a maximum sentence of eight months each time.

See

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17(c)-(d) (2009).
At the time of Alston’s sentencing, district courts
were required to follow this court’s determination that whether
a prior conviction qualified as a felony for purposes of § 851
was evaluated by considering “the maximum aggravated sentence
that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the
worst possible criminal history.”

United States v. Harp, 406

F.3d

While

242,

246

(4th

Cir.

2005).

Alston’s

appeal

was

pending, however, Harp was overruled by our en banc decision in
United States v. Simmons, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3607266 (4th
Simmons held that a prior North

Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (en banc).

Carolina offense was punishable for a term exceeding one year
only

if

the

particular

eligible

for

such

a

defendant

sentence

before

under

the

the

court

applicable

had

been

statutory

scheme, taking into account his criminal history and the nature
Id., at *8; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-

of his offense.
1340.17(c)–(d).
us,

he

was

We agree with Alston that, on the record before

not

eligible

on

either

of

his

North

Carolina

convictions to receive a sentence exceeding one year.
Because Simmons directs the conclusion that Alston was
not convicted of a felony punishable by more than one year of
incarceration,

he

is

not

subject

to

the

§ 851

enhancement.

Because we find that this error affected Alston’s substantial
4

Appeal: 10-4552

Document: 36

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 5 of 5

rights, we vacate Alston’s sentence and remand the case to the
district court for resentencing. *
Accordingly, we affirm Alston’s judgment, vacate his
sentence,
Simmons.
legal
before

and

remand

for

resentencing

in

accordance

with

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

*

Because Alston will be resentenced, we need not address
his third issue, as to the reasonableness of his sentence.

5