Court Opinion

ID: 9370864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 21:00:36.952848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.386434
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4593      Doc: 61         Filed: 02/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-4593

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KEAT SHAUN WINGATE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00015-MBS-1)

        Submitted: January 26, 2023                                  Decided: February 13, 2023

        Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South
        Carolina; Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Corey F. Ellis, United States Attorney, Katherine Hollingsworth
        Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4593      Doc: 61          Filed: 02/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Keat Shaun Wingate appeals the district court’s sentence of 51 months’

        imprisonment followed by 2 years of supervised release imposed upon revocation of his

        prior term of supervised release. 1 Wingate argues on appeal that the district court abused

        its discretion in designating him as a career offender with a corresponding criminal history

        category of VI when imposing his revocation sentence. 2 Specifically, Wingate asserts that

        the law of the case is that he is not a career offender based on our 2005 decision to vacate

        his sentence and remand to the district court and the district court’s second resentencing.

        We affirm.

               This Court reviews a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of

        discretion, evaluating the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings

        for clear error. United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 435 (4th Cir. 2020).

               Generally, the law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon
               a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in
               subsequent stages in the same case. Those stages include a subsequent
               appeal in the same litigation. As such, once the decision of our Court

               1
                 Although Wingate has been released from incarceration, his appeal is not moot
        because he is currently serving his two-year term of supervised release. See United States
        v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 66 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that defendant’s appeal of term of
        incarceration is not rendered moot by his release when he is still serving supervised release
        term).
               2
                 At the revocation hearing, the district court determined that Wingate’s policy
        statement range was 51 to 60 months’ imprisonment based upon a Grade A violation and
        a criminal history category of VI. Neither party objected. Wingate observes on appeal
        that, without the career offender enhancement, his criminal history category would be III
        and, combined with a Class A felony supervised release violation, his policy statement
        range would be 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
        § 7B1.4(a), p.s., n.1 (2018).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4593      Doc: 61          Filed: 02/13/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

               establishes the law of the case, we adhere to that decision in subsequent
               appellate rulings unless: (1) a subsequent trial produces substantially
               different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary
               decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly
               erroneous and would work manifest injustice.

        Fusaro v. Howard, 19 F.4th 357, 367 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). For revocation

        purposes, “[t]he criminal history category to be used in determining the applicable range

        of imprisonment in the Revocation Table is the category determined at the time the

        defendant originally was sentenced to the term of supervision.” USSG § 7B1.4(a), p.s.,

        n.1.

               Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that our 2005 decision did not state

        that Wingate was not a career offender. See United States v. Wingate, 153 F. App’x 197,

        198-99 (4th Cir. 2005) (No. 04-4540). We simply required the district court in sentencing

        Wingate on remand to comply with the holdings of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,

        244 (2005) (holding that mandatory Sentencing Guidelines scheme that provided for

        sentence enhancements based on facts found by district court by a preponderance of the

        evidence violated Sixth Amendment), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th

        Cir. 2005) (holding that sentence imposed under pre-Booker mandatory sentencing scheme

        and enhanced based on facts found by district court, not by jury (or, in guilty plea case, not

        admitted to by defendant), constitutes plain error that affects defendant’s substantial rights

        and warrants reversal under Booker when record does not disclose what discretionary

        sentence court would have imposed under advisory Guidelines scheme). See id. at 198-99.

        Moreover, the district court’s second resentencing of Wingate to 240 months’

        imprisonment—the enhanced statutory mandatory minimum—did not address whether or

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4593         Doc: 61         Filed: 02/13/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

        not Wingate was a career offender, and Wingate’s counsel appeared to recognize that the

        advisory Guidelines range reflected a career offender enhancement. (See J.A. 184). 3 This

        Court affirmed the sentence, again not making any findings as to Wingate’s career offender

        status. See United States v. Wingate, No. 07-4282, 2007 WL 3083111, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct.

        23, 2007).

               Finally, none of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply here: (1) there

        was no subsequent trial producing substantially different evidence; (2) there is no

        subsequent contrary controlling authority; and (3) the prior determination was not clearly

        erroneous. See Fusaro, 19 F.4th at 367. Thus, under the law of the case doctrine, the

        district court did not err in applying the career offender criminal history category VI at

        Wingate’s revocation. See Graves v. Lioi, 930 F.3d 307, 318 (4th Cir. 2019) (“The law-

        of-the-case doctrine recognizes that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision

        should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (internal

        quotation marks omitted)).

               Accordingly, we affirm the revocation 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

               3
                   “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix.

                                                          4