United States v. Goodwin
Decision Date | 14 December 2018 |
Docket Number | Criminal No.: 3:17-cr-01143-JMC-1 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | United States of America, v. Willie Joe Goodwin, II, Defendant. |
Before the court for review are Defendant Willie Joe Goodwin, II's ("Defendant") objections to the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") filed on September 13, 2018. (ECF No. 39.) The court sustains Defendant's first objection and orders the United States Probation Office to submit a new offense level computation and sentencing recommendation in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
(ECF No. 39 at 39 ¶ 104.) The PSR recommends Defendant's "Total Offense Level" is thirty-one (31) after applying reductions for accepting responsibility. (Id. at 39 ¶¶ 105-07.) Finally, the PSR concludes that, "With a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of VI, the guideline imprisonment range is 188 to 235 months." (Id. at 42 ¶ 124.)
Under section 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"), a defendant's base offense level is enhanced if he is a "career offender."
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). The commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 further defines a controlled substance as including the offenses of "aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit" the above offenses. Id. at cmt. 1.
When determining whether a prior state conviction qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" under the Guidelines, the court "approach[es] the issue categorically, looking 'only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense.'" United States v. Cabrera-Umanzor, 728 F.3d 347, 350 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, (1990)); McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816, 820 (2011) (). "The categorical approach focuses on the elements of the prior offense rather than the conduct underlying the conviction." Id. To apply the categorical approach, the court "compar[es] the elements of the underlying offense to the federal definition." United States v. Walker, 858 F.3d 196, 198 (4th Cir. 2017). See also Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2248 (2016) () . If the elements of the underlying offense "sweep[] more broadly" than the federal definition, "a conviction under that law cannot count" as a controlled substance offense. Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 261 (2013).
Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2256 (citation omitted). Thus, if the statute lists means, or is indivisible, the categorical approach applies. But, if the statute list elements, and is divisible, the modified categorical approach applies. See United States v. Vinson, 794 F.3d 418, 430 (4th Cir. 2015) (); Omargharib v. Holder, 775 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 2014) (); United States v. Marshall, No. 16-4594, 2018 WL 4150855, at *8 (4th Cir. Aug. 29, 2018) (). If "the statute is 'divisible'—i.e., comprises multiple, alternative versions of the crime—a later sentencing court cannot tell, without reviewing something more, if the defendant's conviction was for" a version of the crime that meets the federal definition, and therefore, qualifies for a sentencing enhancement. Descamps, 570 U.S. at 262. Under the modified categorical approach, "the sentencing court may . . . consult certain approved 'extra-statutory materials . . . to determine which statutory phrase was the basis for the conviction." United States v. Cabrera-Umanzor, 728 F.3d 347, 350 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Descamps, 570 U.S. at 256). However, "As the Supreme Court emphasized . . . the modified categorical approach, 'serves a limited function: It helps effectuate the categorical analysis when a divisible statute, listing potential offense elements in the alternative,renders opaque which element played a part in the defendant's conviction.'" Id. (quoting Descamps, 570 U.S. at 260).
Defendant argues that because section 44-53-370(a)(1) can be violated by purchasing marijuana, it "does not meet the guideline definition of a controlled substance offense, as defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)." (ECF No. 39-2 at 1.) Defendant contends the South Carolina statute is not divisible under Mathis because the statute "set[s] out a single crime, a drug violation, that can be committed a number of different ways." (Id. at 2.) Thus, Defendant asserts, and the Government agrees, that under the categorical approach, section 44-53-370(a)(1) is broader than the federal definition because it prohibits purchasing a controlled substance, while the federal definition prohibits the "manufacture, import, export distribution or dispensing of a controlled substance[ . . .] or the possession of a controlled substance . . . with the intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." (Id.; ECF No. 45 at 2.)
Alternatively, Defendant argues that even if the court finds the modified categorical approach applies, the court should not rely on sentencing sheets to determine whether the offense Defendant pleaded guilty to meets the federal definition for a controlled substance offense. (Id. at 3.) Defendant asserts that his sentencing sheets refer to (1) the statute of conviction—section 44-53-370—and (2) indicate both that Defendant pleaded guilty to Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and pleaded guilty "as indicted." (Id.) The indictments Defendant pleaded guilty to mirrored the language of S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(a)(1). (ECF No. 39 at 9 ¶ 29, 11 ¶ 31.) Thus, Defendant argues that under the rule of lenity, the court should solve this ambiguity in his favor. (ECF No. 39-2 at 4 ¶ 1.)
The Government and the PSR assert that S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370 is divisible, and therefore, the modified categorical approach applies. (ECF No. 39-2 at 3-6; ECF No. 45 at 1-7.)They rely on the Fourth Circuit's unpublished opinions in United States v. Vinson, 340 F. App'x 882, 883 (4th Cir. 2009) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial