UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4879
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARLO BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00426-RDB-1)
Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: June 8, 2012
Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlo Brown, Appellant Pro SE. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlo Brown pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006). The district
court sentenced Brown to 151 months of imprisonment, and we
granted the Government’s motion to dismiss his appeal as
untimely. The district court subsequently granted in part
Brown’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion, entering an
amended judgment from which Brown now appeals. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Brown first argues on appeal that the district court
lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution. However, Brown
pleaded guilty to a federal offense, and we have previously held
that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) is a constitutional exercise of
Congressional authority. See United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d
1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995).
Brown next argues that the district court erred in
finding that he was a career offender, contending that his two
prior assault convictions do not qualify as crimes of violence.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine the sentence for
“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
2
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Pursuant to the Guidelines, a defendant is classified
as a career offender if he was eighteen years old when he
committed the offense of conviction, the offense of conviction
is a felony crime of violence or controlled substance offense,
and he has sustained at least two prior convictions for crimes
of violence or controlled substance offenses. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1(a) (2011). A crime of
violence is defined in part as an offense punishable by a term
exceeding one year of imprisonment that has as an element the
use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against
another. USSG § 4B1.2(a). A controlled substance offense is an
offense punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment
that prohibits the distribution of a controlled substance. USSG
§ 4B1.2(b). Here, even if Brown’s prior assault convictions did
not qualify as crimes of violence, he had sustained two prior
qualifying convictions for distribution of a controlled
substance and robbery. Therefore, the district court did not
err in determining that Brown was a career offender.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4