Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 14-4697
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:13-cr-00061-F-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Steven McDonald appeals his sentence after a jury
conviction for distributing cocaine base.
On appeal, McDonald
range
is
substantively
unreasonable
because
it
is
We affirm.
we
consider
whether
the
district
court
committed
procedurally
reasonable,
we
consider
If the sentence
whether
it
is
Id.
F.3d 306, 309 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1514 (2015)
(citation and quotation marks omitted).
application
involves
mixed
question
Where a Guidelines
of
law
and
fact,
the
marks omitted).
Generally, we review de novo an issue of law whether a prior
offense qualifies as a predicate for purposes of the Guidelines
career offender enhancement.
F.3d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1326 (2014)
(citation omitted).
The
Although
McDonald was sentenced on the same day for these convictions, they
were separated by an intervening arrest.
McDonalds counsel in the district court filed no objections
to the presentence report and conceded that he was a career
offender. McDonald filed pro se objections claiming that he should
not receive any criminal history points for the paragraph 30
conviction
because
he
was
sentenced
on
the
same
day
as
the
purposes.
felony under North Carolina law that was not punishable by more
than one year in prison.
consecutive
conviction.
In
to
another
addition,
sentence,
to
remove
for
any
the
paragraph
question
that
30
the
McDonald
has
moved
to
strike
the
addendum
because
the
or
considered
sentencing.
by
the
district
court
at
McDonalds
conviction
We disagree.
was
Class
felony
or
was
otherwise
not
Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(i)(3)(A); see also United States v. Revels, 455 F.3d 448, 451
n.2 (4th Cir. 2006).
Thus, the fact that McDonalds prison sentence was suspended did
not mean that his offense was not punishable by more than one year
in prison.
to
remove
any
doubt
created
by
McDonalds
factual claim made for the first time on appeal that his prior
conviction was a Class I felony that was not punishable by more
than one year in prison, and because the accuracy of the state
judgments included in the addendum to the Governments brief is
not disputed, we conclude that it is in the interest of justice to
take judicial notice of the judgments.
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239-40 (4th Cir.
1989).
The
bottom
of
the
Guidelines
range
in
recognition
of
the