UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4986

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KOREY MAURICE MCGIRT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:13-cr-00168-CCE-1)

Submitted: August 26, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bettina Kay Roberts, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Korey Maurice McGirt appeals the thirty-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to falsely make, 

counterfeit, and alter obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 371 (2012). On appeal, McGirt argues that the district court 

plainly erred in assessing three criminal history points for a 

conviction under South Carolina’s Youthful Offender Act (“YOA”)

when he was seventeen years old. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

“We review any sentence, whether inside, just outside, 

or significantly outside the Guidelines range, [for 

reasonableness] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 

2012) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). 

The first step in this review requires us to “ensure that the 

district court has not committed any significant procedural 

error.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Procedural 

errors include, among others, “failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. 

at 51. 

Because McGirt did not object to the points assessed 

for the YOA conviction, this court’s review is limited to plain 

error. United States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3d 404, 410 (4th Cir. 
3

2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1838 (2013); see Henderson v. 

United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013) (discussing 

standard of review). A defendant receives three criminal 

history points for a prior sentence that exceeded one year and 

one month of imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) § 4A1.1(a) (2013). For offenses committed prior to the 

age of eighteen, like McGirt’s YOA conviction, USSG 

§ 4A1.2(d)(1) instructs that, “[i]f the defendant was convicted 

as an adult and received a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 

one year and one month,” USSG § 4A1.1(a) applies. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude that McGirt’s 

2005 YOA conviction was an adult conviction for which he 

received an adult sentence. McGirt was convicted in the court 

of General Sessions, rather than a South Carolina family court. 

See United States v. Pinion, 4 F.3d 941, 944 (11th Cir. 1993)

(noting that defendant was convicted in “the Court of General 

Sessions—an adult court”). McGirt’s sentence was an adult 

sentence, as the court of General Sessions may sentence youthful 

offenders to the state’s Department of Corrections. S.C. Code 

Ann. § 24–19–50(3) (1989). Thus, the district court did not 

plainly err in relying on McGirt’s 2005 YOA conviction in 

assigning three criminal history points. 
4

For these reasons, we 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. 

AFFIRMED