Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4428 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY LAVELLE MEREDITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:16-cr-00224-H-2) Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4428 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY LAVELLE MEREDITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:16-cr-00224-H-2) Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4428
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COURTNEY LAVELLE MEREDITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:16-cr-00224-H-2)
Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Lavelle Meredith appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed after he
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity
of crack cocaine. Meredith argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to
rule on his objection to the presentence report’s failure to calculate a reduction for a
minor role in the offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (2016).
Finding no error, we affirm the sentence.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first review for significant
procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider substantive
reasonableness.
Id. at 51. Procedural error includes improperly calculating the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the selected sentence.
Id. This court applies de novo review for questions relating to the legal interpretation of
the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Dowell,
771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014)
(citation omitted).
At sentencing, the district court chose not to resolve Meredith’s objection because,
even if it found that the USSG § 3B1.2 reduction applied and reduced the offense level
accordingly, it would not have changed the final calculation of Meredith’s applicable
total offense level because that calculation was driven by his undisputed career offender
status. The calculation of the offense level, after consideration of adjustments under
Parts A, B, and C of Chapter Three in the Guidelines, is superseded by the determination
2
of qualifying career offender status. See USSG § 1B1.1(a) (1)-(8). The court properly
determined that, even if the USSG § 3B1.2 adjustment had reduced Meredith’s offense
level, the total offense level based upon Meredith’s career offender status would not have
been reduced. Therefore, because resolution of the objection would not have had an
effect on the sentence, the court did not err in choosing not to rule on the objection. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B).
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 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.
AFFIRMED
3