Court Opinion

ID: 9402037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 21:00:41.939043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.106537
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4430      Doc: 24         Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4430

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LEROY RAYMOND GRIFFIN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00018-GMG-RWT-1)

        Submitted: April 3, 2023                                          Decided: June 13, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lara Kay
        Omps-Botteicher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4430       Doc: 24          Filed: 06/13/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Leroy Raymond Griffin pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin, in

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

        Griffin to 120 months’ imprisonment, a term below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines

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

        (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether

        the district court erred in overruling Griffin’s objections to the calculation of the Guidelines

        range. Griffin has filed pro se supplemental briefs, expanding on the issue raised by

        counsel and raising the additional issue of whether the court procedurally erred by failing

        to afford his counsel an adequate opportunity to argue during sentencing. The Government

        has declined to file a response brief. Finding no error, we affirm.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard. United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020). In

        conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

        “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory

        [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

        considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected

        sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “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. Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 474 (4th Cir. 2012)

        (cleaned up).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4430       Doc: 24         Filed: 06/13/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

               The district court properly calculated the Guidelines range.           After correctly

        calculating Griffin’s base offense level and criminal history category, the court, over

        Griffin’s objection, applied a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon

        during a drug offense pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1)

        (2018). “The enhancement is proper when the weapon was possessed in connection with

        drug activity that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense

        of conviction.” United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 189 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). During Griffin’s sentencing hearing, a law enforcement officer

        testified that officers recovered a firearm from the residence of Griffin’s codefendant, a

        lower-level drug dealer whom Griffin supplied with drugs as part of a wide-ranging drug

        distribution conspiracy. Because Griffin’s offense of conviction occurred within the larger,

        jointly undertaken criminal activity, it is not “clearly improbable that [the codefendant’s]

        firearm was connected” with Griffin’s offense. USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A) (stating that

        “[t]he enhancement should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly

        improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense”); see USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)

        (defining when acts or omissions of others are attributable to defendant). Accordingly, we

        hold that the district court did not clearly err in applying § 2D1.1(b)(1).

               The district court also imposed a four-level enhancement for Griffin’s role in the

        offense, again over Griffin’s objection.          The Guidelines provide for a four-level

        enhancement to a defendant’s base offense level where the defendant “was an organizer or

        leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise

        extensive.” USSG § 3B1.1(a). Based upon the officer’s testimony that Griffin set drug

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4430       Doc: 24         Filed: 06/13/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        prices, advised lower-level dealers, and coordinated a drug distribution conspiracy

        spanning several states, the preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s finding that

        Griffin was a leader or organizer of criminal activity. See United States v. Cameron, 573

        F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing when leadership role enhancement is

        appropriate). Thus, the court did not clearly err in applying § 3B1.1(a).

               Additionally, the district court imposed a two-level enhancement under USSG

        § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E). The enhancement applies if the defendant received an enhancement

        under USSG § 3B1.1 and “committed the offense as part of the pattern of criminal conduct

        engaged in as a livelihood.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E). “Engaged in as a livelihood” means

        that, for any 12-month period, (1) “the defendant derived income from a pattern of criminal

        conduct that . . . exceeded 2,000 times the then existing hourly minimum wage under

        federal law,” and (2) “the totality of circumstances shows that such criminal conduct was

        the defendant’s primary occupation.” USSG § 4B1.3 cmt. n.2 (internal quotation marks

        omitted); see USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.20(C) (referencing USSG § 4B1.3). Two of Griffin’s

        coconspirators reported significant earnings to law enforcement, suggesting that Griffin, as

        a higher-level drug supplier, derived substantial income from drug dealing. Furthermore,

        Griffin lacked steady employment during the course of the approximately year-long drug

        distribution conspiracy. We therefore conclude that the facts support the district court’s

        application of USSG § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E).

               We further conclude that Griffin’s sentence is otherwise procedurally reasonable.

        The district court listened to Griffin allocute, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and

        thoroughly explained Griffin’s sentence, crediting his remorse and proven potential for

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4430         Doc: 24      Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        rehabilitation while also acknowledging his serious offense conduct and recidivism. And,

        contrary to Griffin’s assertion on appeal, the record reflects that the court permitted

        Griffin’s counsel to argue extensively as to the appropriate Guidelines range and the

        application of the § 3553(a) factors.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

        meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

        requires that counsel inform Griffin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court

        of the United States for further review. If Griffin 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 Griffin.

               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

                                                     5