PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 06-4124
RODRICK DELANE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(0:05-cr-00499-cmc)
Argued: September 26, 2007
Decided: November 15, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and
Robert E. PAYNE, Senior United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Williams wrote the opin-
ion, in which Judge Shedd and Senior Judge Payne joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Langdon Dwight Long, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Tara L. McGregor, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
2 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
Charles Sochran, First Year Law Student, OFFICE OF THE FED-
ERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-
lant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
WILLIAMS, Chief Judge:
Rodrick Delane Williams appeals his sentence of 180 months’
imprisonment for one count of being a felon in possession of a fire-
arm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a), and 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Williams argues that
the district court erred in sentencing him under the Armed Career
Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (the "ACCA"), which mandates
a minimum sentence of fifteen years if a defendant has three prior
convictions for "serious drug offense[s]" or "violent felon[ies]." To
qualify as a "serious drug offense," a prior conviction must carry a
maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more. Id. § 924(e).
Williams contends that one of his prior convictions does not meet this
requirement because he received a sentence for the conviction under
South Carolina’s Youthful Offender Act ("YOA"), S.C. Code Ann.
§ 24-19-50 (2007), which, in his view, permits state courts to cap the
maximum penalty for certain offenders at six years’ imprisonment.
Because Williams’s argument misconstrues the relevant statutes, we
affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.
I.
On May 3, 2005, a grand jury in the District of South Carolina
charged Williams with one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a), and 924(e). On July 19, 2005, Williams pleaded guilty to the
charged offense pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government.
Williams’s presentence report (PSR) identified three prior convic-
tions as qualifying predicate convictions for purposes of the ACCA.
Accordingly, the PSR provided that "[p]ursuant to U.S.S.G.
UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS 3
§ 4B1.4(a), the defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence under the
provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) as an armed career criminal."
(J.A. at 76.)1 Williams objected to the PSR on the ground that his
prior conviction for Failure to Stop for Blue Lights was not a predi-
cate offense under the ACCA.2
At sentencing, Williams further objected to the PSR on the ground
that his 1995 conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack
cocaine, in violation of S. C. Code Ann. § 44-53-375 (2002 & Supp.
2006) (the "1995 conviction"), did not qualify as a predicate offense
under § 924(e) because he had been sentenced under the YOA, which
permitted the state court to designate him as an offender who could
not receive a sentence in excess of six years (and thus was not subject
to a maximum penalty of ten years or more).
The district court overruled both of Williams’s objections to the
PSR. Regarding the YOA argument, the district court found that "the
offense carried a sentence that was ten years or greater, and . . . the
fact that the judge had the discretion to sentence [Williams] under the
YOA to a sentence that, in fact, did not exceed five years consecutive
. . . does not change the fact that this was a . . . serious drug offense
within the meaning of the Armed Career Offender Statute . . . ." (J.A.
at 50.) In making this finding, the district court relied heavily on the
record of Williams’s guilty plea to the 1995 offense. The record
revealed that when Williams pleaded guilty in exchange for the Gov-
ernment’s promise to recommend a "YOA one to six-year sentence,"
(J.A. at 47), he acknowledged that the plea agreement did not bind the
court, which could impose a higher sentence. Specifically, Williams
"acknowledg[ed] . . . the 15-year penalty for distribution of crack
cocaine." (J.A. at 49.) The district court thus concluded that the sen-
tencing court "was not bound by th[e] YOA agreement," and could
have declined to sentence Williams under the YOA. (J.A. at 48.)
Accordingly, the district court determined that the prior offense car-
ried a maximum sentence of at least ten years and therefore consti-
tuted a "serious drug offense" that qualified as a predicate offense
under the ACCA.
1
Citations to "(J.A. at ___.)" refer to the contents of the joint appendix
filed by the parties to this appeal.
2
Williams does not pursue this objection on appeal.
4 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
Because of his status as an armed career criminal under § 924(e),
Williams was subject to a statutory 180-month mandatory minimum
sentence. The district court "s[aw] no need to give him any more than
the minimum," (J.A. at 52), and therefore sentenced Williams to 180
months’ imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised
release.
Williams timely appealed his sentence.3 We have jurisdiction pur-
suant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West 2000) (providing for appellate
jurisdiction over a "final sentence" entered by the district court) and
28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 2006) (providing for appellate jurisdiction
over "final decisions" of the district court).
II.
We review de novo the question of whether a prior conviction qual-
ifies as a predicate conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act,
18 U.S.C. § 924(e). United States v. Baseen Shakir Williams, 326
F.3d 535, 537 (4th Cir. 2003).4
The ACCA provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen
years where a defendant has three prior convictions for a "violent fel-
ony" or "serious drug offense," or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1). An
offense under state law is a "serious drug offense" if it "involv[es]
manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture
or distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802)), for which a maximum
term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law." Id.
§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).
Williams raises only one issue on appeal — whether his 1995 con-
viction meets the definition of "serious drug offense" in
§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). He does not dispute that the crime constitutes an
offense under state law that involved possessing with intent to distrib-
3
Williams’s plea agreement does not contain an appeal waiver.
4
To avoid confusion between the defendant in this case and the defen-
dant in our prior decision, we refer to our previous decision as United
States v. Baseem Shakir Williams, 326 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2003).
UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS 5
ute a controlled substance. Williams argues only that because he was
sentenced under the YOA, the 1995 conviction was not one for which
a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more was pre-
scribed by law, and therefore does not meet § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s defi-
nition of a "serious drug offense."
According to Williams, the YOA accords sentencing courts the dis-
cretion to designate certain defendants as offenders who cannot be
sentenced to more than six years’ imprisonment. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 24-19-50(3) (providing that a court may sentence a "youthful
offender indefinitely to the custody of the department for treatment
and supervision . . . until discharged by the division, the period of
custody not to exceed six years"). In his view, once the district court
uses the YOA to designate an offender as one who cannot receive a
sentence in excess of six years, the offense of conviction no longer
carries a possible term of imprisonment of ten years or more and
therefore does not qualify as a "serious drug offense." We disagree.
Williams’s characterization of sentencing under the YOA contra-
dicts both the language of the YOA itself and the record of the state
court proceedings related to his 1995 conviction. To be sure, the YOA
does contain a provision permitting sentencing courts to commit
youthful offenders to an indefinite period of treatment not to exceed
six years.5 See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-19-50(3). The YOA also pro-
5
The YOA defines "youthful offender" as an offender who is:
(i) under seventeen years of age and has been bound over for
proper criminal proceedings to the court of general sessions pur-
suant to Section 20-7-7605 for allegedly committing an offense
that is not a violent crime, as defined in Section 16-1-60, and that
is a misdemeanor, a Class D, Class E, or Class F felony, as
defined in Section 16-1-20, or a felony which provides for a
maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen years or less, or
(ii) seventeen but less than twenty-five years of age at the time
of conviction for an offense that is not a violent crime, as defined
in Section 16-1-60, and that is a misdemeanor, a Class D, Class
E, or Class F felony, or a felony which provides for a maximum
term of imprisonment of fifteen years or less.
S.C. Code Ann. § 24-19-10(d) (2007).
6 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
vides, however, that the court "may sentence the youthful offender
under any other applicable penalty provision" if it "finds that the
youthful offender will not derive benefit from treatment." S.C. Code
Ann. § 24-19-50(4). Moreover, the language of the YOA is permis-
sive, not mandatory. The statute provides that "in the event of a con-
viction of a youthful offender the court may" employ one of the
sentencing alternatives set forth in the YOA. S.C. Code Ann. § 24-19-
50 (emphasis added). The YOA does not require that South Carolina
courts sentence youthful offenders under § 24-19-50. Rather, it gives
courts the option to do so. Williams’s argument that the YOA pre-
cluded the state court from sentencing him to more than six years thus
contradicts the statute’s plain language, which simply sets forth a dis-
cretionary sentencing alternative.
Indeed, Williams concedes that, as a factual matter, he could have
received a sentence of up to 15 years’ imprisonment for the 1995 con-
viction, the maximum penalty prescribed for the offense. See S.C.
Code Ann. § 44-53-375(B)(1) (stating that a person convicted of pos-
sessing cocaine base with intent to distribute "for a first offense, must
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than fifteen years
or fined not more than twenty-five thousand dollars, or both"). Wil-
liams acknowledged at his sentencing for the 1995 offense that the
court was not required to accept the plea agreement in which he
agreed to a YOA sentence and that he was potentially subject to the
15-year maximum for the offense of conviction. At oral argument,
Williams’s counsel also admitted that Williams could have received
a sentence of fifteen years for the 1995 conviction.
It is impossible to square Williams’s argument that the YOA pre-
cluded the state court from imposing a sentence of more than six
years for the 1995 conviction with Williams’s admission that the state
court could have sentenced him to as many as 15 years. In effect, Wil-
liams’s contention that, by sentencing him under S.C. Code Ann.
§ 24-19-50(3), the state court eliminated the possibility of a ten-year
sentence for the 1995 conviction boils down to an argument that, in
determining whether the 1995 conviction qualifies as a predicate
offense under § 924(e), we should look to the sentence actually
imposed, rather than the range of penalties to which Williams was
potentially subject.
UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS 7
Williams’s approach, however, runs counter to the plain language
of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s definition of "serious drug offense," which
encompasses crimes "for which a maximum term of imprisonment of
ten years or more is prescribed by law" and contains no reference to
the sentence actually imposed. Id. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis
added); see McCarthy v. United States, 135 F.3d 754, 757 n.3 (11th
Cir. 1998) (rejecting an "invitation to look to the actual sentence
imposed for a predicate offense" rather than the statutory maximum
because "[s]uch an approach flies in the face of the plain meaning of
the statutory language, which refers to the ‘maximum sentence’ not
to the actual sentence imposed"). On its face, § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)
directs courts to consider the statutory penalty for the prior convic-
tion, not the sentence the defendant in fact received. A prior convic-
tion therefore qualifies as a "serious drug offense" if the statute of
conviction permits the imposition of a sentence of ten years or more.6
Our sister circuits have likewise concluded that § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s
reference to the "maximum term of imprisonment . . . prescribed by
law" pertains to the statutory penalty for the predicate offense. Both
the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have rejected arguments that
§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) refers to the sentence imposed for the prior convic-
tion. See United States v. Henton, 374 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2004)
(explaining that, for § 924(e) purposes, the sentence a defendant in
fact received for the prior offense is irrelevant because "what matters
is the sentence that the state statute made possible"); McCarthy, 135
F.3d at 757 (holding that "the statutory maximum sentence is the sen-
tence referred to by [§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s definition of ‘serious drug
offense’]"). Similarly, the First Circuit has held that a defendant’s
state convictions constituted "serious drug offense[s]" even though
they were adjudicated in Massachusetts district court, "which, by stat-
ute, cannot impose a sentence of more than two and one-half years"
6
In addition, we note that the Supreme Court has expressly eschewed
a "factual approach" to determining whether a prior conviction meets the
requirements of § 924(e), in which "a particular crime might sometimes
count towards enhancement and sometimes not, depending on the facts
of the case". See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 601 (1990); see
also Baseem Shakir Williams, 326 F.3d at 538 (applying Taylor’s
approach to determine whether a prior offense constituted a "serious drug
offense" under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)).
8 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
because the statute of conviction "allow[ed] for a maximum possible
penalty of ten years’ incarceration." United States v. Moore, 286 F.3d
47, 48-49 (1st Cir. 2002).
Moreover, we have reached similar conclusions in interpreting
analogous statutory provisions and Sentencing Guidelines. See United
States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that, in
determining whether a prior offense is "punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year" for purposes of designating a defen-
dant as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guide-
lines, courts must consider "the maximum aggravated sentence that
could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst pos-
sible criminal history," because Congress drafted the enhancement to
cover crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one
year, not "individuals punished by" or "sentenced for" imprisonment
for more than a year (emphasis in original)); United States v. Jones,
195 F.3d 205, 207 (4th Cir. 1999) (same); United States v. Coleman,
158 F.3d 199, 203-04 (4th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (rejecting an argument
that, in applying 18 U.S.C.A. § 921(a)(20)(B) (West 2000) to cases
in which there exists no statutory maximum penalty for a prior
offense, "the actual sentence imposed is determinative of whether an
offense was ‘punishable’ by a term of imprisonment of greater than
two years" because the plain language of § 921(a)(20)(B) "unambigu-
ously indicates that the critical inquiry in determining whether a state
offense fits within the misdemeanor exception is whether the offense
is ‘punishable’ by a term of imprisonment greater than two years—
not whether the offense ‘was punished’ by such a term of imprison-
ment").7
Williams claims that, in Baseem Shakir Williams, we took a con-
trary approach to interpreting § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Baseem Shakir Wil-
7
We note that we have also addressed the precise issue Williams
raises, but in an unpublished opinion. See United States v. Wilson, 60 F.
App’x. 445, 445-46 (4th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (holding that because
courts must determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a "serious
drug offense" by "look[ing] at the statutory penalty for the conviction,"
the defendant’s prior drug convictions fit within the Act’s definition of
"serious drug offense" even though the defendant was sentenced under
the YOA).
UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS 9
liams, however, does not help his position. There, we considered
whether a defendant’s prior convictions for offenses classified as
"third degree crimes" under New Jersey law qualified as predicate
offenses for purposes of § 924(e). 326 F.3d at 537. A New Jersey stat-
ute provided that third degree crimes were ordinarily punishable by
a maximum term of imprisonment of five years, id. at 539, but a sepa-
rate statutory provision authorized an extended sentence of no more
than 10 years for recidivists if certain procedural safeguards were
exercised, id. Absent exercise of the procedural safeguards, a defen-
dant could not receive an enhanced sentence. Id. In light of this
framework, we concluded that the maximum sentence prescribed by
law in cases in which the state opted not to exercise the procedural
safeguards was five years. Id. Thus, we expressly based our determi-
nation on the maximum term of imprisonment that the state court
could have imposed, not the sentence the defendant actually received.8
The other case on which Williams relies, United States v. Morton,
17 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 1994), is also bereft of support for his interpre-
tation of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Morton dealt with a situation in which the
state legislature amended its drug laws after the defendant was sen-
tenced in state court for his prior convictions, thereby lowering the
maximum penalty for those offenses. The Sixth Circuit held that in
8
In Baseem Shakir Williams, we did not consider the effect of statutory
provisions authorizing sentencing enhancements based solely on recidi-
vism in determining the maximum sentence prescribed by law for a pred-
icate offense. Our sister circuits have split on the question. Compare
United States v. Henton, 374 F.3d 467, 469 (7th Cir. 2004) (distinguish-
ing Baseem Shakir Williams, and holding that a violation of an Illinois
statute that provided "that possession of less than a gram of cocaine with
the intent to deliver is a Class 2 felony" carrying a statutory maximum
of seven years but also permitting "any person convicted of a second or
subsequent offense . . . [to] be sentenced to imprisonment for a term up
to twice the maximum term otherwise authorized" qualified as a "serious
drug offense" if the offender was eligible for the enhancement (internal
quotation marks omitted)), with United States v. Rodriquez, 464 F.3d
1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) ("For federal sentencing enhancement pur-
poses, when we consider the prison term imposed for a prior offense, we
must consider the sentence available for the crime itself, without consid-
ering separate recidivist sentencing enhancements." (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
10 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
determining whether a prior state conviction carries a maximum term
of imprisonment of at least ten years and therefore qualifies as a "seri-
ous drug offense" under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), courts should look to the
maximum term of imprisonment permitted by state law at the time of
sentencing in federal court for a § 922(g) violation, not at the time of
the state conviction. Id. at 914-15. The maximum penalty for Wil-
liams’s 1995 conviction was the same at the time of his federal sen-
tencing for the § 922(g) violation as it was when Williams was
sentenced for the prior offense in state court. Morton is completely
inapposite. A state court’s decision to employ a discretionary alterna-
tive sentencing scheme is not analogous to a state legislature’s deci-
sion to amend the statute of conviction, because the later may alter the
statutory penalty for the prior offense, while the former cannot.
Accordingly, we conclude that because the statutory penalty for
Williams’s 1995 conviction exceeded 10 years’ imprisonment, the
1995 conviction was one "for which a maximum term of imprison-
ment of ten years or more is prescribed by law" and therefore quali-
fies as a "serious drug offense" within the meaning of
§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Williams concedes that the state court could have
sentenced him to as many as 15 years. He cannot evade the plain lan-
guage of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) by arguing that as soon as he received a
YOA sentence of six years or less, he could not have been sentenced
to ten years or more.
III.
In sum, we join our sister circuits in holding that whether a prior
conviction meets the requirements of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) depends on
the statutory penalty for the offense, not the sentence actually
imposed. We therefore agree with the district court that Williams’s
1995 conviction was one "for which a maximum term of imprison-
ment of ten years or more [wa]s prescribed by law,"
§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), despite the fact that the state court exercised the
discretion afforded it by the YOA to sentence him to an indefinite
period of confinement not to exceed six years. Accordingly, the judg-
ment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.