Court Opinion

ID: 9838775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 21:00:53.893149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:41.211591
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4630      Doc: 44         Filed: 09/06/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4630

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        THOMAS ALLEN SCOTLAND, a/k/a Vegas,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00049-FL-1)

        Submitted: August 31, 2023                                   Decided: September 6, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: David A. Brown, Sr., DABROWNLAW, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina,
        for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, John L. Gibbons, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4630      Doc: 44          Filed: 09/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Allen Scotland pleaded guilty, without a written plea agreement, to one

        count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 28 grams or more

        of cocaine base and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846;

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

        and three counts of distribution of cocaine base and aiding and abetting the same, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court originally

        sentenced Scotland to 162 months’ imprisonment.            On appeal, this court affirmed

        Scotland’s convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing based on

        United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Singletary, 984

        F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021). United States v. Scotland, 852 F. App’x 754, 755-56 (4th Cir.

        2021) (No. 19-4602). At resentencing, Scotland objected to his career offender designation

        on the basis that his North Carolina convictions pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(1)

        did not qualify as controlled substance offenses under United States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th

        438 (4th Cir. 2022). The court found that the convictions did qualify as controlled

        substance offenses under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 (2018) and

        resentenced Scotland to 151 months’ imprisonment.

               On appeal, Scotland again contends that, after Campbell, his prior North Carolina

        convictions are not controlled substance offenses under USSG § 4B1.2. “The Court

        considers de novo whether a prior conviction is a controlled substance offense under the

        Guidelines.” United States v. Miller, 75 F.4th 215, 228-29 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up).

        In Miller, we held that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a) “is a categorical match” with the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4630      Doc: 44         Filed: 09/06/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        definition of a controlled substance offense in the Guidelines. Id. at 230-31. Thus, the

        district court did not err in finding that Scotland’s North Carolina convictions qualified as

        controlled substance offenses under USSG § 4B1.2.

               Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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