75 F.4th 215
4th Cir.2023Background
- In Sept. 2020 Miller (a validated gang affiliate) was involved in a shooting at a Durham convenience store: after being fired upon he fired multiple rounds at occupied vehicles; shell casings and video supported the events.
- Miller had prior North Carolina convictions (felony speeding to elude; sale/delivery of a Schedule II) with a suspended 10–25 month sentence replaced by 12 months’ probation.
- Arrested in Dec. 2020 with a handgun in a fanny pack, Miller was indicted on two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of ammunition and of a firearm).
- Miller pleaded guilty; at the plea colloquy he disputed some factual allegations (gang membership, social-media posts) but did not dispute the existence or content of his prior convictions or the signed state plea transcript.
- The PSR set base offense level 20 (because of a prior controlled-substance conviction), added +4 under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (firearm in connection with another felony — assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill), and added +2 criminal-history points for committing the offense while on probation, yielding Guidelines 41–51 months; the district court upwardly varied and imposed 72 months concurrent.
- On appeal Miller challenged his plea under Rehaif/Greer and raised several sentencing errors; the Government conceded the +2 probationary criminal-history points were erroneous. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the plea ruling, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing without the probation points; it rejected Miller’s other sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Rehaif/Greer (knowledge‑of‑status) | Indictment misstated element; court failed to inform him that gov must prove he knew his priors carried >1 year; insufficient factual basis that he knew that status | Indictment and plea colloquy properly stated elements; plea transcript and sworn admissions supplied factual basis | Plea valid. Indictment and colloquy adequately stated the knowledge‑of‑status element; factual basis (signed state plea, PSR, plea admissions) was sufficient. |
| +2 criminal‑history points for being on probation | He was not on probation at time of Sept. 2020 offense | Conceded error | Government conceded; sentencing vacated and remanded for resentencing without these points. |
| §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) +4 enhancement (firearm in connection with felony assault with intent to kill) | No identifiable victim; actions were in self‑defense, so enhancement unjustified | Assault with intent to kill may be inferred from firing at occupied moving vehicles; facts support enhancement | Enhancement upheld. Firing multiple rounds into occupied fleeing vehicles supports intent to kill and not reasonably justified as self‑defense once attackers were fleeing. |
| Base offense level 20 (prior conviction is a "controlled substance offense") | North Carolina sale/delivery statute criminalizes attempts; under Campbell, least culpable conduct may not match Guidelines definition | Statute is analogous to the federal statute in Groves; NC separately criminalizes attempts so statute is a categorical match to Guidelines’ definition | Upheld. Applying Groves, NC sale/delivery (which defines "deliver" to include attempted transfer but also has separate attempt statute) qualifies categorically as a controlled substance offense for Guidelines purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (requires proof defendant knew relevant status for § 922(g) convictions)
- Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (applies Rehaif in plain‑error context and clarifies burden for unpreserved challenges)
- United States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2022) (applies categorical approach to determine whether a state drug statute qualifies under Guidelines)
- United States v. Groves, 65 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2023) (distinguishes Campbell and holds statutes that separately criminalize attempts can still categorically match Guidelines' controlled substance definition)
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (addresses whether a prior state conviction actually was punishable by >1 year for federal status‑of‑conviction questions)