USA v. Ladarius Melton

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Boyce F. Martin , Jr., Circuit Judge; Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge and R. Guy Cole , Jr., Circuit Judge.

Case: 10-5382

Document: 006111358203

Filed: 07/03/2012

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0712n.06
FILED

No. 10-5382

Jul 03, 2012

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LADARIUS MELTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE

Before: MARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Ladarius Melton appeals a district court judgment sentencing him to 160
months of imprisonment for one count of bank robbery.
Melton pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The
district court determined that Melton was a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1(a) based in part on
his prior conviction under Tennessee law for evading arrest. Melton’s evading arrest conviction was
charged as a Class E felony. The district court sentenced Melton as a career offender to 160 months
in prison. On appeal, Melton argues that the district court erred by concluding that his prior
conviction for evading arrest constituted a “crime of violence” under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines.
A district court’s determination that a prior conviction is a crime of violence under the
Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Ruvalcaba, 627 F.3d 218, 221 (6th Cir. 2010), cert.
denied, 131 S. Ct. 2133 (2011). In determining whether a conviction is a crime of violence under
the Guidelines, we analyze the conviction in the same way we analyze whether a conviction is a

Case: 10-5382

Document: 006111358203

Filed: 07/03/2012

Page: 2

No. 10-5382
-2“violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). United States v.
Meeks, 664 F.3d 1067, 1070 n.1 (6th Cir. 2012). Melton’s argument that his prior conviction for
evading arrest is not a crime of violence under the Guidelines is foreclosed by our decision in United
States v. Doyle, No. 10-5075, 2012 WL 1560394 (6th Cir. May 4, 2012), which held that a
conviction under Tennessee law for Class E felony evading arrest is a violent felony under the
Armed Career Criminal Act.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.