United States v. Darion Johnson
694 F. App'x 192
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Darion Devon Johnson pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 841) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- His Guidelines range was increased by career-offender status based on two prior controlled-substance convictions.
- The Presentence Report and district court applied two four-level enhancements based on findings that Johnson possessed firearms in connection with another felony and engaged in firearms trafficking.
- The district court sentenced Johnson to 240 months on Count 5 (with a concurrent 120 months on Count 6), within the Guidelines range, and recommended placement at Butner.
- On appeal Johnson challenged: (1) career-offender designation, (2) possession-in-connection enhancement, (3) firearms-trafficking enhancement, and (4) procedural reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Career-offender status | Prior convictions do not qualify to make him a career offender | Two prior qualifying controlled-substance convictions support career-offender status | Affirmed — career-offender designation proper |
| Firearm possessed in connection with another felony | Firearm was not connected to another felony offense | Government proved connection by preponderance of the evidence | Affirmed — enhancement proper |
| Firearms-trafficking enhancement | Did not engage in trafficking of firearms | Government showed trafficking-related conduct by preponderance of the evidence | Affirmed — enhancement proper |
| Procedural reasonableness / explanation of sentence | Requested a lenient sentence; court failed to state individualized reasons | Sentence was within Guidelines, so no further explanation required | Reversed as to sentencing explanation — vacated and remanded for resentencing due to inadequate reasons stated by district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing procedures and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error; legal conclusions de novo)
- United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2015) (district court need not recite each § 3553(a) factor mechanically)
- United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 2015) (district court must make individualized assessment and state reasons in open court)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (explanation required even for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2006) (insufficient explanation prevents appellate review of sentence)