702 F. App'x 148
4th Cir.
2017

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lazarus Frederico BEATTY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4439

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: July 31, 2017

148-151

Submitted: March 29, 2017

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). Dotson appeals his 48-month sentence, alleging that it is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review any “sentence, within or outside of the [Sentencing] Guidelines range, as a result of a departure or a variance for reasonаbleness pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 49, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 350, 354-55, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). In assessing substantive reasonableness, we “measure the sentence against the statutory sentencing factors while taking into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 157 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). A sentence is not unreasonable simply because we might have assigned a different weight to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Rather, we must defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence only if it is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been our choice. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160 (4th Cir. 2008). “While a district court‘s explanation for thе sentence must support the degree of the variance, it need not find extraordinary circumstances to justify a deviation from the Guidelines.” United States v. Spencer, 848 F.3d 324, 327 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

At the sentencing hearing the district court calculated Dotson‘s advisory Guidelines ‍​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‍range as 24-30 months of imprisonment. The district court carefully analyzed the § 3553(a) factors and found an upward variance sentence of 48 months was warranted. In so resolving, the district court acknowledged the positive influences on Dotson‘s life but concluded that Dоtson‘s actions did not demonstrate that these influences had improved his conduct or choices. Moreover, the district court expressed concеrn about Dotson‘s criminal history and his propensity for violence, and found a need to incapacitate and deter Dotson from further criminal activity. Thus, the сourt addressed the parties’ arguments, listened to Dotson personally, and adequately explained its sentence. Based on a totality of the circumstаnces, Helton, 782 F.3d at 157, we conclude the sentence is reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence 18 months over the top of Dоtson‘s advisory sentencing range. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d at 365. Accordingly we affirm the district court‘s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assis-

tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Lazarus Frederico Beatty appeals his conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA“), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), on the grounds that his previous North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-54 (“North Carolina Breaking and Entering“), do not qualify as predicate crimes of violence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court.

I.

On March 9, 2016, Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felоn in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1). J.A. 8-16. Prior to and at sentencing, Defendant objected to the use of his four prior convictions for North Carolina Breаking ‍​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‍and Entering as ACCA predicates. J.A. 69-71. Finding that these prior convictions qualified as violent felonies under ACCA,1 the district court sentenced Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment. J.A. 48-49, 61-66; sеe 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Defendant timely appealed. J.A. 67.

II.

We review de novo whether a prior offense qualifies as an ACCA predicate. United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793, 801 (4th Cir. 2016). Because North Carolina Breaking and Entering qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA, we affirm the district court.

ACCA requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months imprisonment for anyone who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and has three prior convictions for a “violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both” committed on separate occasions. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). A violent felony “(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or othеrwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id. § 924(e)(2)(B).

This case involves the second, or enumerated, clause. In оrder to qualify as a predicate offense under ACCA‘s enumerated clause, see id. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), the elements of a state crime cannot be broader than the elements of an enumerated generic crime, see Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990).

The generic elements of burglary are “unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” Id. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143. North Carolina Breaking and Entering defines “building” as “any dwelling, house, uninhabited house, building under construction, building ‍​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‍within the curtilage of a dwelling house, аnd any other structure designed to house or secure within it any activity or property.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-54(c).

United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014), provides ample grounds for our affirmance. In Mungro, this court held that North Carolina Breaking and Entering “as interpreted by the North Carоlina Supreme Court, sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary,” and thus qualifies as a predicate offense under ACCA‘s enumerated clause. Id. at 272.

Defendant argues that Mungro does not control because his argument concerns the “building” element of North Carolina Breaking and Entering, whereas the defendant‘s argument in Mungro focused оn the “entry” element. Appellant‘s Br. at 4-5. Defendant‘s argument does not persuade this court. See United States v. Thompson, 615 Fed.Appx. 160, 160-11 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Henriquez, 757 F.3d 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2014).

Still we takе pains to note that Defendant‘s argument also falters because North Carolina courts construe North Carolina Breaking and Entering‘s “building” element in a manner that tracks generic burglary‘s “building” element. See, e.g., State v. Gamble, 56 N.C.App. 55, 286 S.E.2d 804, 805-06 (1982).2 Thus, even absent Mungro, Defendant‘s appeal lacks merit because North Carolina Breaking and Entering‘s “building” element sweeps no broader than generic burglary‘s “building” element. Compare Taylor, 495 U.S. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143, with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-54(c).3

III.

We affirm the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lеgal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Notes

1
To reach this conclusion, the district court relied on United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014), which held thаt North Carolina Breaking and Entering “as interpreted by the North Carolina Supreme Court, sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary,” id. at 272.
2
To furthеr bolster our conclusion, we note that ‍​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‍North Carolina has a separate statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-56, that distinguishes the breaking and entering of vehicles, boats, aircrafts, and оther watercrafts from “buildings“—the main issue that has led the Supreme Court and this court to strike down other similar statues as having a “building” element broader than that of generic burglary. See Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 2250, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016); United States v. White, 836 F.3d 437, 445-46 (4th Cir. 2016); see also State v. Pope, 2008 WL 4911803, at *3-4 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (unpublished) (discussing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-56); State v. Douglas, 54 N.C.App. 85, 282 S.E.2d 832, 834 (1981) (distinguishing between § 14-54 and § 14-56 by looking into the permanence versus mobility of a mobile home); State v. Bost, 55 N.C.App. 612, 286 S.E.2d 632, 634-35 (1982) (employing the test of permanence versus mobility to decide whether a trailer constitutes a “building“).
3
In Mungro, the defendant argued that because the “entry” element of North Carolina Breaking and Entering was too broad, the court should not construe his prior convictions as ACCA predicates. Mungro, 754 F.3d at 269-270. Defendant relies on United States v. McLeod, 808 F.3d 972 (4th Cir. 2015), for the prоposition that absent indication from the text of a panel‘s opinion, and no matter how broadly a panel phrases its holding, we should assume the panеl decided a categorical-approach issue only concerning the elements briefed and argued before the court. See id. at 977; Appellant‘s Br. at 7-10.

McLeod dealt with South Carolina‘s burglary statute. McLeod, 808 F.3d at 973. Prior to McLeod, this court had hеld that South Carolina‘s burglary statute “tracks the ‍​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‍generic definition of burglary set forth by the Supreme Court in Taylor” and therefore burglary “falls within ACCA‘s list of prior offenses.” United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, this court concluded Wright did not control because the McLeod court did not cоnsider briefing or hear argument on the issue—that is, whether South Carolina‘s burglary statute was broader than generic burglary because of its “dwelling” element. McLeod, 808 F.3d at 977.

If McLeod conflicts with Wright or Mungro, Wright or Mungro would control as the earlier panel decisions. See McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 333 (2004). Nevertheless, we need not sift through all possible conflicting relationships between Wright, Mungro, and McLeod because North Carolina Breaking and Entering‘s “building” element sweeps no broader than generic burglary.

Read the detailed case summary