Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 06-4124
Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Williams wrote the opinion, in which Judge Shedd and Senior Judge Payne joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Langdon Dwight Long, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Tara L. McGregor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Charles Sochran, First Year Law Student, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
WILLIAMS, Chief Judge:
Rodrick Delane Williams appeals his sentence of 180 months
imprisonment for one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 922(g)(1),
924(a), and 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Williams argues that
the district court erred in sentencing him under the Armed Career
Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.A. 924(e) (the "ACCA"), which mandates
a minimum sentence of fifteen years if a defendant has three prior
convictions for "serious drug offense[s]" or "violent felon[ies]." To
qualify as a "serious drug offense," a prior conviction must carry a
maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more. Id. 924(e).
Williams contends that one of his prior convictions does not meet this
requirement because he received a sentence for the conviction under
South Carolinas Youthful Offender Act ("YOA"), S.C. Code Ann.
24-19-50 (2007), which, in his view, permits state courts to cap the
maximum penalty for certain offenders at six years imprisonment.
Because Williamss argument misconstrues the relevant statutes, we
affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.
I.
On May 3, 2005, a grand jury in the District of South Carolina
charged Williams with one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 922(g)(1),
924(a), and 924(e). On July 19, 2005, Williams pleaded guilty to the
charged offense pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government.
Williamss presentence report (PSR) identified three prior convictions as qualifying predicate convictions for purposes of the ACCA.
Accordingly, the PSR provided that "[p]ursuant to U.S.S.G.
vides, however, that the court "may sentence the youthful offender
under any other applicable penalty provision" if it "finds that the
youthful offender will not derive benefit from treatment." S.C. Code
Ann. 24-19-50(4). Moreover, the language of the YOA is permissive, not mandatory. The statute provides that "in the event of a conviction of a youthful offender the court may" employ one of the
sentencing alternatives set forth in the YOA. S.C. Code Ann. 24-1950 (emphasis added). The YOA does not require that South Carolina
courts sentence youthful offenders under 24-19-50. Rather, it gives
courts the option to do so. Williamss argument that the YOA precluded the state court from sentencing him to more than six years thus
contradicts the statutes plain language, which simply sets forth a discretionary sentencing alternative.
Indeed, Williams concedes that, as a factual matter, he could have
received a sentence of up to 15 years imprisonment for the 1995 conviction, the maximum penalty prescribed for the offense. See S.C.
Code Ann. 44-53-375(B)(1) (stating that a person convicted of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute "for a first offense, must
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than fifteen years
or fined not more than twenty-five thousand dollars, or both"). Williams acknowledged at his sentencing for the 1995 offense that the
court was not required to accept the plea agreement in which he
agreed to a YOA sentence and that he was potentially subject to the
15-year maximum for the offense of conviction. At oral argument,
Williamss counsel also admitted that Williams could have received
a sentence of fifteen years for the 1995 conviction.
It is impossible to square Williamss argument that the YOA precluded the state court from imposing a sentence of more than six
years for the 1995 conviction with Williamss admission that the state
court could have sentenced him to as many as 15 years. In effect, Williamss contention that, by sentencing him under S.C. Code Ann.
24-19-50(3), the state court eliminated the possibility of a ten-year
sentence for the 1995 conviction boils down to an argument that, in
determining whether the 1995 conviction qualifies as a predicate
offense under 924(e), we should look to the sentence actually
imposed, rather than the range of penalties to which Williams was
potentially subject.
10