Court Opinion

ID: 9898631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 21:00:47.215783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:23.826119
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6744      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6744

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LANCE D. YOUNG,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00063-JPB-JPM-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                               Decided: November 13, 2023

        Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lance D. Young, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6744      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lance D. Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the record and

        find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States

        v. Young, No. 5:05-cr-00063-JPB-JPM-1 (N.D.W. Va. June 17, 2022). 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

               *
                  We limit our review to issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);
        Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). On appeal, Young contends that
        he no longer has the requisite number of qualifying predicates to be classified as a career
        offender, and the district court did not adequately consider the argument. However, as the
        district court recognized, we previously found otherwise. See In re Young, No. 16-882 (4th
        Cir. June 6, 2016) (order denying motion). His argument is based on his claim that he was
        sentenced as a career offender based on a conviction for simple possession of marijuana
        with a statutory maximum of less than one year; but it was based on his felony convictions
        for possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, two counts of
        possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance within 1,000 feet of a
        school, and reckless manslaughter. Even assuming the manslaughter conviction no longer
        qualifies, he has not shown that he does not have the requisite career offender predicates.
        Moreover, even without the enhancement on Count 1 under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B),
        851, his statutory maximum remains life on his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) conviction;
        and his Guidelines range remains 360 months to life pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1(c)(3).

                                                     2