United States v. Larry Copeland
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4162
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Copeland pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine and waived appellate rights in a plea agreement, with exceptions for ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct not known at plea.
- The government sought an enhanced sentence under § 841(b)(1)(B) based on Copeland’s prior state drug convictions, and the PSR designated him as a career offender under § 4B1.1.
- Counsel and the court explained potential penalties, including possible life imprisonment with the § 851 enhancement, and Copeland acknowledged understanding.
- Two state felonies used as predicates were later questioned after Simmons (en banc) overruled Harp, so Copeland argued he could not have received >12 months for those predicates.
- At sentencing, the court adopted the PSR, clarified the statutory range with the § 851 enhancement, denied a continuance, and imposed a 216-month sentence with eight years of supervised release.
- Copeland timely appealed, but the government moved to enforce the appeal waiver; the court dismissed part of the appeal and affirmed the remainder related to continuance and other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of appeal waiver | Copeland argues Simmons affects his sentence amenability. | Copeland’s waiver covers all sentences except excess of advisory range. | Waiver covers Simmons-based guideline issues; appeal dismissed on those grounds. |
| Career offender status and § 841 enhancements post-Simmons | Copeland could not be enhanced because predicates could not exceed 12 months. | The waiver precludes challenges to guideline calculations; the sentence within range remains valid. | Claims about Simmons-based adjustments within waiver scope are dismissed. |
| Legality of eight-year supervised release | Eight-year term exceeded statutory authority and made sentence illegal. | No illegality; Pratt forecloses argument; the sentence falls within statute and guidelines. | Sentence not illegal; arguments rejected within waiver framework. |
| Denial of continuance for sentencing | District court abused discretion by denying continuance to review McNeill/Simmons-related issues. | No abuse; Copeland had notice of enhanced range; insufficient prejudice to require delay. | No abuse of discretion; continuance denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc; admissibility of state predicates post-Simmons for federal enhancements)
- United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2005) (predicate felony review for career offender based on state conviction severity)
- United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (plea waiver enforceability post-change in law; scope of waiver)
- United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2000) (waiver covers challenges to guidelines-based sentences)
- McNeill v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2218 (S. Ct. 2011) (Supreme Court decision discussed at sentencing)
- Pratt v. United States, 239 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2001) (three years minimum supervised release under § 841(b)(1)(C))
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (S. Ct. 2012) (retroactivity of Fair Sentencing Act)