Court Opinion

ID: 9407662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 21:01:13.886074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.488398
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4518      Doc: 24         Filed: 07/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4518

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAEKWON CORTEZ FORD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00274-SAL-1)

        Submitted: June 28, 2023                                             Decided: July 6, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F.
        Boroughs, United States Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4518       Doc: 24          Filed: 07/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In 2021, a grand jury charged Raekwon Cortez Ford with one count of being a felon

        in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2018), in

        connection with his possession of a Ruger handgun on December 4, 2019. Ford pled guilty

        to the charge, and the district court sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,

        Ford argues that the district court erred in applying Sentencing Guidelines enhancements

        for possession of semiautomatic weapons and possession of between three and seven total

        firearms. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), (b)(1)(A) (2018). The

        district court applied these enhancements to account for firearms that Ford possessed in

        June 2019 and November 2020. Ford contends that the court improperly considered those

        firearms because they were not part of “the same course of conduct or common scheme or

        plan as the offense of conviction,” namely, his unlawful possession of a firearm on

        December 4, 2019. USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2). Finding no error, we affirm.

               “In assessing whether a district court properly calculated the Guidelines range,

        including its application of any sentencing enhancements, [we] review[] the district court’s

        legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Pena,

        952 F.3d 503, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Ford “does

        not contend that the district court applied the incorrect legal rule, but instead challenges the

        factual analysis the district court conducted in applying the relevant conduct Guideline,”

        our review is for clear error. United States v. Pineda, 770 F.3d 313, 319 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “Under the clear error standard, we will only reverse

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4518      Doc: 24         Filed: 07/06/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        if left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United

        States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 225 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Under USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2), relevant conduct for sentencing purposes includes “all

        acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or

        plan as the offense of conviction.” Acts “may qualify as the ‘same course of conduct’ ‘if

        they are sufficiently connected or related to each other as to warrant the conclusion that

        they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing series of offenses.’” United States v.

        McDonald, 28 F.4th 553, 563-64 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting USSG § 1B1.3 cmt. n.5(B)(ii)).

        Put differently, “the same-course-of-conduct standard requires only that the defendant be

        engaged in an identifiable pattern of certain criminal activity.” Id. at 564 (cleaned up).

        Factors relevant to this inquiry include “the degree of similarity of the offenses, the

        regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the offenses.” USSG

        § 1B1.3 cmt. n.5(B)(ii).

               Here, each of Ford’s episodes of firearm possession involved “similar core conduct

        in the form of felon-in-possession” violations. McDonald, 28 F.4th at 564. In each

        instance, Ford possessed one or more handguns, and he concealed each of the weapons.

        Law enforcement discovered the weapons, which were either stolen or located close to

        stolen property, while investigating motor vehicle break-ins. Further, excluding time Ford

        spent incarcerated, he committed the three episodes of firearm possession over the course

        of approximately six months.      The facts thus reflect that “all three incidents were

        sufficiently connected temporally and involved a regular pattern of similar conduct.” Id.

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4518         Doc: 24      Filed: 07/06/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        at 562. We therefore conclude that the district court did not clearly err in considering the

        June 2019 and November 2020 firearms in its calculation of Ford’s Guidelines range.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Ford’s motion to

        expedite. 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

                                                     4