Court Opinion

ID: 9400321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 21:00:31.09934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.501494
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4444      Doc: 40         Filed: 06/06/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4444

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BRIAN LEE BREWINGTON, a/k/a Bloody Maniack,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-cr-00208-M-1)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                               Decided: June 6, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
        Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4444       Doc: 40         Filed: 06/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Brian Lee Brewington appeals the 128-month sentence imposed following his guilty

        plea to distributing a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

        Brewington argues that the district court erroneously applied the career offender

        enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 (2018), because the

        offense of conviction does not qualify as a controlled substance offense, and because his

        2018 North Carolina conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana

        should have been classified as relevant conduct rather than counted as a prior conviction.

               A defendant qualifies as a career offender if

               (1) [he] was at least eighteen years old at the time [he] committed the instant
               offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is
               either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) [he] has
               at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
               controlled substance offense.

        USSG § 4B1.1(a). A “controlled substance offense” is “an offense under federal or state

        law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the

        manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance . . . or the

        possession of a controlled substance . . . with intent to manufacture, import, export,

        distribute or dispense.” USSG § 4B1.2(b).

               We review de novo whether a defendant’s conviction qualifies as a controlled

        substance offense. United States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th 438, 441 (4th Cir. 2022). When

        determining whether a conviction triggers a career offender enhancement, we generally

        employ the categorial approach, “focus[ing] on the elements of the . . . offense rather than

        the conduct underlying the conviction.” United States v. Dozier, 848 F.3d 180, 183 (4th

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4444      Doc: 40         Filed: 06/06/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). A conviction qualifies as a controlled

        substance offense “only if all of the ways of violating the statute, including the least

        culpable, satisfy the Guidelines’ definition” of a controlled substance offense. United

        States v. Walker, 858 F.3d 196, 199 (4th Cir. 2017).

               In United States v. Groves, 65 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2023), we held that a conviction

        for distribution of a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) categorically

        qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” under USSG § 4B1.2. Applying Groves, we

        conclude that Brewington’s offense of conviction categorically qualifies as a “controlled

        substance offense” under USSG § 4B1.2.

               Next, Brewington argues that the district court erred in applying the career offender

        enhancement because his 2018 North Carolina conviction for possession with intent to sell

        or deliver marijuana was relevant conduct to the instant distribution offense under USSG

        § 1B1.3(a)(2), and therefore should not have been counted as a prior conviction.

        Brewington acknowledges that this court’s decision in United States v. Moses, 23 F.4th

        347 (4th Cir. 2022), forecloses his claim. However, Brewington asserts that United

        States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2022), is directly in conflict with Moses and that

        Campbell, as the first-in-time opinion, controls. Campbell considered whether an inchoate

        crime qualified as a career offender predicate—a different factual scenario than is

        presented here. On the other hand, because Moses addressed the identical issue as is

        presented here: whether a controlled substance conviction returned several years earlier is

        relevant conduct in relation to a controlled substance offense of conviction or whether it is

        properly counted as a prior conviction for purposes of the career offender enhancement.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4444        Doc: 40      Filed: 06/06/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        Accordingly, Moses controls. Therefore, the court did not err in sentencing Brewington as

        a career offender.

               Accordingly, we affirm. 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