United States v. James Langston
685 F. App'x 210
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant James Antonio Langston pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months.
- Langston received a career-offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines based on prior state convictions, which raised his Guidelines range; the district court nevertheless imposed a below-Guidelines sentence.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief challenging whether the district court erred by denying a further downward variance on the ground that the career-offender enhancement overstated Langston’s criminal history and produced sentencing disparity.
- Langston filed a pro se supplemental brief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The Government did not file a response.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed procedural and substantive reasonableness, considered whether some state convictions properly counted as career-offender predicates, and examined whether any appellate relief was warranted; it affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2012 NC convictions improperly counted or overstated criminal history supporting career-offender enhancement | Langston: 2012 NC offenses were not punishable by >1 year and thus should not be used to support career-offender status; enhancement overstates history | Govt / Sentencing court: Even if 2012 convictions were excluded, two other qualifying predicates remain; court could consider 2012 convictions for variance | Affirmed: Excluding 2012 convictions would not defeat career-offender status; district court permissibly considered them for variance |
| Whether career-offender enhancement created an unwarranted sentencing disparity or overrepresented risk (substantive reasonableness) | Langston: Predicates were remote, committed young, concurrent, and South Carolina sentences made them appear more recent—leading to disparity | Court: Langston had subsequent NC drug convictions and continued trafficking, undercutting argument that enhancement misrepresented risk; sentence was below Guidelines | Affirmed: below-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable and Langston failed to rebut that presumption |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel raised pro se | Langston: trial counsel was ineffective (various claims) | Govt: (not argued on appeal); court: ineffective assistance not conclusively shown on record | Not addressed on direct appeal; remanded to §2255 motion if Langston wishes to pursue |
| Prosecutorial misconduct raised pro se (not raised below) | Langston: prosecutor committed misconduct affecting fairness | Govt: (no response); issues not preserved below | Reviewed for plain error; record shows no prosecutorial misconduct or resulting prejudice—claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel filing brief asserting no meritorious issues)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for below-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for Guidelines enhancement challenges)
- United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2016) (procedural-review issues in sentencing)
- United States v. Diosdado–Star, 630 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2011) (substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective assistance claims generally not resolved on direct appeal unless evident on record)
- United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (directing ineffective-assistance claims to §2255 when not conclusively shown on record)
- United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681 (4th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review for unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims)
- United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608 (4th Cir. 2010) (prosecutorial-misconduct standard requiring prejudice)