UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4265
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEQUANTEY MAURICE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00110-CCE-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Lisa B.
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dequantey Maurice Williams pled guilty to possession
of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony
offense. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2012). The district
court determined that Williams qualified as an armed career
criminal subject to a 180-month minimum sentence. The court
departed downward and sentenced Williams to 153-months
imprisonment. He appeals, challenging the determination that he
qualified as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We
affirm.
Section 924(e) provides for a 180-month minimum
sentence upon violation of § 922(g) by a person who has three or
more prior felony convictions for either violent felonies or
serious drug trafficking offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
Williams concedes that he had two qualifying predicate offenses.
At issue in this appeal is whether Williams’ 2005 conviction of
North Carolina common law robbery is a crime punishable by a
term of imprisonment exceeding one year, thus qualifying as a
felony offense and the third predicate conviction required for
Williams to be sentenced as an armed career criminal.
In United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.
2011), we held that a North Carolina conviction is a crime
punishable by more than one year of imprisonment if the
particular defendant is eligible for a sentence of more than one
2
year, taking into account his criminal history and the nature of
his offense. Id. at 247 & n.9. Williams contends that the
common law robbery offense does not qualify because he was
sentenced within the mitigated range under North Carolina’s
Structured Sentencing Act, to 8 to 10 months imprisonment. This
court has held that, although a defendant is sentenced within
the mitigated range, the maximum sentence the defendant could
receive is determined by the presumptive range under the North
Carolina Structured Sentencing Act. See United States v. Kerr,
737 F.3d 33, 38-39 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.
1773 (2014); see also North Carolina v. Bivens, 573 S.E.2d 259,
261–62 (N.C. App. 2002) (providing that, even if judge finds
that mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors, the judge
may sentence the defendant within the presumptive range).
Because the maximum sentence in the presumptive range for
Williams’ common law robbery offense exceeded 12 months, this
conviction qualified as a felony offense, and thus his armed
career criminal enhancement was proper.
Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ sentence. 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
3