Court Opinion

ID: 9929722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:37.19293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:31.961686
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4468      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4468

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RICHARD TODD FRADY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00054-MR-WCM-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: David Q. Burgess, DAVID BURGESS LAW, PC, Charlotte, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4468      Doc: 41          Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Todd Frady pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a mixture and

        substance containing more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).      The district court sentenced him to 240 months’

        imprisonment, a downward variance from the 262- to 327-month career offender advisory

        Sentencing Guidelines range. Frady appealed.

               Frady’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), stating that he found no meritorious grounds for appeal but challenging Frady’s

        career offender designation. Counsel for Frady argues that the district court erred by

        applying the modified categorical approach to find that Frady’s prior North Carolina

        convictions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(1) * qualified as controlled substance offenses

        for purposes of career offender designation and asserts that these prior offenses

        categorically do not qualify as career offender predicates. Frady was advised of his right

        to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. The Government has declined

        to file a response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

               Generally, to determine whether a prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence, the

        sentencing court must apply the categorical approach. United States v. Ward, 972 F.3d

        364, 368-69 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2020). This “approach focuses on the elements of the prior

        offense rather than the conduct underlying the conviction.” United States v. Dozier, 848

               *
                 This provision makes it “unlawful for any person . . . [t]o manufacture, sell, or
        deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver, a controlled substance.”
        N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(1).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4468       Doc: 41         Filed: 02/02/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

        F.3d 180, 183 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The sentencing court

        may, however, apply a modified categorical approach—permitting reliance on a limited

        class of documents to determine the elements of the defendant’s specific crime—to a

        “divisible” statute that lists elements in the alternative to define multiple crimes. Mathis v.

        United States, 579 U.S. 500, 505-06 (2016).

               We recently held that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a) “is a categorical match” with the

        Guidelines’ definition of a controlled substance offense. United States v. Miller, 75 F.4th

        215, 230-31 (4th Cir. 2023).         Because Frady’s prior North Carolina convictions

        categorically qualify as predicate career offender offenses, the district court’s application

        of the modified categorical approach to reach the same conclusion amounts to harmless

        error. Cf. United States v. Doctor, 958 F.3d 226, 238 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding that vacatur

        of sentence for Guidelines error is unnecessary where error is harmless).

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

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

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

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Frady 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 Frady. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4468     Doc: 41         Filed: 02/02/2024   Pg: 4 of 4

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 AFFIRMED

                                                   4