UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AKEEM OLAJUWAN DAVIS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00385-RJC-DCK-3)

Submitted: April 30, 2024 Decided: June 6, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Richard L. Brown Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR., 

Monroe, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Akeem Olajuwan Davis pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of 

distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and one count 

of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The 

district court sentenced him to concurrent 108-month terms on each count, to be followed 

by concurrent supervised release terms of four and three months respectively. On appeal, 

Davis’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Davis’ 

within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally reasonable. Davis was notified of his right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file 

a brief. We affirm. 

We review a criminal “sentence[]—whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “must first ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly calculating[] the 

Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from 

the Guidelines range.” Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, then we 

consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the 

circumstances.” Id. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines 

range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 

2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3 

Davis’ counsel questions whether the district court erred in applying two-point 

enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon, U.S Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), and for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or 

distributing a controlled substance, USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12). Upon review, we find that the 

record support these enhancements. A confidential informant purchased cocaine base and 

firearms multiple times from Davis at the residence in question, including a firearm and 

cocaine base together. Thus, a weapon “was possessed in connection with drug activity 

that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of 

conviction.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Further, the record as a whole supports that Davis had access 

to, and control over, the residence to conduct his drug distribution operation from there. 

See United States v. Barnett, 48 F.4th 216, 220-21 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 

823 (2023). We therefore find that the enhancements were properly applied. 

The district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range as 87 to 108 

months in prison. The court listened to the parties’ arguments, considered the § 3553(a) 

factors, and explained its reasons for imposing a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines 

range and declining to grant a downward variance. Davis’ sentence is both procedurally 

and substantively reasonable. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the imposition 

of Davis’ sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Davis. 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 4 of 4