United States v. Landrail Davis
692 F. App'x 734
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Landrail Davis pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base (18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
- The district court initially found Davis to be a career offender, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- The district court departed downward from that Guidelines range and imposed a 96-month sentence.
- The court alternatively stated that, even if Davis were not a career offender, it would impose the same 96-month sentence as an upward variance from a 24–30 month non-career-offender range due to Davis’s extensive criminal history and recidivism risk.
- On appeal Davis argued the career-offender classification was procedurally erroneous because a prior North Carolina sentence exceeded the relevant time window for scoring; the Government argued any Guidelines error was harmless given the alternate variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by classifying Davis as a career offender | Davis: prior NC sentence fell outside the time period for counting as a predicate, so career-offender classification was erroneous | Gov't: any Guidelines error is harmless because district court imposed same sentence as alternative variance | Court: assumed possible error but held any error harmless because district court expressly would have imposed the same 96-month sentence and that sentence is reasonable | |
| Whether the 96-month sentence is substantively reasonable | Davis: alternate variance is erroneous if career-offender status invalid | Davis urged reversal of sentence reasonableness | Gov't: sentence reasonable given Davis’s criminal history and risk of recidivism | Court: 96-month sentence substantively reasonable under § 3553(a); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (harmless-error framework for assumed Guidelines error)
- United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 2011) (guidance on harmlessness when Guidelines error is alleged)
- United States v. Dalton, 477 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2007) (sentencing court not required to mechanically discuss every rejected Guidelines category)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for reasonableness of sentences)