United States v. Daniel Canter
664 F. App'x 347
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Daniel Lee Canter pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 188 months’ imprisonment.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm after officers found a shotgun in Canter’s vehicle near a safe containing methamphetamine and a large amount of cash.
- The probation officer and district court treated Canter as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, which prescribes a criminal history category of VI.
- Canter challenged (1) the firearm enhancement, arguing the shotgun’s connection to the drug offense was "clearly improbable," and (2) the career-offender application, arguing that because the court used the "otherwise applicable" offense level it should apply his non-career-offender criminal history category (V) instead of Category VI.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the Guidelines application for clear error (factual findings) and de novo (legal conclusions) and affirmed the district court on both points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(1) two-level firearm enhancement was improper | Canter: shotgun was not connected to drug activity; connection was "clearly improbable" | Government: weapon was proximate to drugs/cash and thus supports the enhancement | Court: enhancement proper; defendant failed to show connection was clearly improbable |
| Whether career-offender rule § 4B1.1(b) incorrectly applied criminal history Category VI when the court used the "otherwise applicable" offense level | Canter: using the "otherwise applicable" offense level removes the career-offender subsection’s requirement to set criminal history at VI, so his true Category V should apply | Government: once defendant qualifies as a career offender subsection (b) applies and prescribes Category VI regardless of which offense level is used | Court: career-offender provision correctly applied; criminal history Category VI stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2016) (sentence review framework)
- United States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2014) (review standards for Guidelines application)
- United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2011) (defendant bears burden to show firearm connection is clearly improbable)
- United States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1997) (proximity of guns to narcotics can support enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1))
- United States v. Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2004) (subsection (b) of career-offender guideline applies whenever defendant qualifies as career offender)
- United States v. Gordon, 838 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2016) (career-offender criminal-history Category VI applies even when using the "otherwise applicable" offense level)