UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERROD DUPREE LYMAN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00113-TMC-1)

Submitted: March 22, 2022 Decided: April 21, 2022

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Lora C. Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Rhett 

DeHart, Acting United States Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerrod Dupree Lyman, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 

924(a)(2), (e). The district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

Lyman challenges the district court’s determination that his three prior South Carolina 

convictions under S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370 qualified as serious drug offenses under the 

Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) or controlled substance offenses under the 

Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. 

We review de novo the district court’s determination that Lyman’s prior convictions 

qualify as serious drug offenses under the ACCA or controlled substance offenses under 

the Guidelines. See United States v. Allen, 909 F.3d 671, 674 (4th Cir. 2018). The ACCA 

defines a “serious drug offense” as “an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, 

distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance 

. . . , for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by 

law.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The Guidelines define a controlled substance offense 

as “an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding

one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a 

controlled substance . . . or the possession . . . with intent” to distribute such substances. 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(b). 

Lyman contends that S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370 is divisible into three crimes, all 

of which are overbroad because they include purchasing drugs as means. As such, Lyman 

asserts that his prior convictions are not serious drug offenses or controlled substance 
3

offenses. However, our decision in United States v. Furlow, 928 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2019), 

vacated and remanded on other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2824 (2020), bars Lyman’s argument. 

There, we held that S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-375(B)—which we noted was “almost 

identical” to § 44-53-370(a)(1)—was divisible between each of the alternatives specified 

in the statute, and thus subject to the modified categorical approach when determining 

whether a prior conviction under that statute was a controlled substance offense under the 

Guidelines or a serious drug offense under the ACCA. Furlow, 928 F.3d at 320-22; see 

United States v. Williams, 997 F.3d 519, 522-23 (4th Cir. 2021). We therefore conclude 

that the modified categorical approach set forth in Furlow applies to Lyman’s prior 

convictions. Lyman does not dispute that, under Furlow’s approach, his South Carolina 

convictions qualified as serious drug offenses under the ACCA or controlled substance 

offenses under the Guidelines. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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