US v. David Roy Carter
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00102-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4646]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
DAVID ROY CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00102-FL-1)
Submitted: April 26, 2017
Decided: June 1, 2017
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
David Roy Carter pled guilty without a plea agreement to being a felon in possession
of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). He was sentenced to a
term of 48 months’ imprisonment.
Carter alleges on appeal that the district court
procedurally erred by sentencing him under an incorrectly calculated Guidelines range.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence
is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, this court considers whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51.
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then this court reviews it for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at
51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
“Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Carter contends that the district court procedurally erred by sentencing him under
an incorrectly calculated Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. He asserts that the range
was miscalculated because the court erroneously found that his prior convictions in North
Pg: 3 of 3
Carolina for attempted second degree kidnapping qualify as a crime of violence pursuant
to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 (2014), which impacted his base offense
level and criminal history category. Carter argues that his offenses only qualified as a
crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause, which is void for vagueness under
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
Carter’s claim is unavailing. The Supreme Court recently held in Beckles v. United
States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), that the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge
under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. at 892, 895, 897. The Court
explained that, unlike the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause, “§ 4B1.2(a)’s
residual clause is not void for vagueness.” Id. at 895, 897. Accordingly, Carter’s challenge
under Johnson to the calculation of his Guidelines range is without merit. Finally, given
the continued viability of § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause, Carter’s assertion that his conviction
for an “attempted” offense cannot qualify as a crime of violence is likewise unavailing.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?