United States v. Jerrod Lyman, Jr. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 21-4210      Doc: 19         Filed: 04/21/2022    Pg: 1 of 3
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-4210
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JERROD DUPREE LYMAN, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00113-TMC-1)
    Submitted: March 22, 2022                                         Decided: April 21, 2022
    Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ON BRIEF: Lora C. Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
    FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Rhett
    DeHart, Acting United States Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4210      Doc: 19          Filed: 04/21/2022     Pg: 2 of 3
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerrod Dupree Lyman, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
    possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1),
    924(a)(2), (e). The district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
    Lyman challenges the district court’s determination that his three prior South Carolina
    convictions under 
    S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370
     qualified as serious drug offenses under the
    Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) or controlled substance offenses under the
    Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
    We review de novo the district court’s determination that Lyman’s prior convictions
    qualify as serious drug offenses under the ACCA or controlled substance offenses under
    the Guidelines. See United States v. Allen, 
    909 F.3d 671
    , 674 (4th Cir. 2018). The ACCA
    defines a “serious drug offense” as “an offense under State law, involving manufacturing,
    distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance
    . . . , for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by
    law.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(2)(A)(ii). The Guidelines define a controlled substance offense
    as “an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
    one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a
    controlled substance . . . or the possession . . . with intent” to distribute such substances.
    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(b).
    Lyman contends that 
    S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370
     is divisible into three crimes, all
    of which are overbroad because they include purchasing drugs as means. As such, Lyman
    asserts that his prior convictions are not serious drug offenses or controlled substance
    2
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4210      Doc: 19        Filed: 04/21/2022     Pg: 3 of 3
    offenses. However, our decision in United States v. Furlow, 
    928 F.3d 311
     (4th Cir. 2019),
    vacated and remanded on other grounds, 
    140 S. Ct. 2824
     (2020), bars Lyman’s argument.
    There, we held that 
    S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-375
    (B)—which we noted was “almost
    identical” to § 44-53-370(a)(1)—was divisible between each of the alternatives specified
    in the statute, and thus subject to the modified categorical approach when determining
    whether a prior conviction under that statute was a controlled substance offense under the
    Guidelines or a serious drug offense under the ACCA. Furlow, 928 F.3d at 320-22; see
    United States v. Williams, 
    997 F.3d 519
    , 522-23 (4th Cir. 2021). We therefore conclude
    that the modified categorical approach set forth in Furlow applies to Lyman’s prior
    convictions. Lyman does not dispute that, under Furlow’s approach, his South Carolina
    convictions qualified as serious drug offenses under the ACCA or controlled substance
    offenses under the Guidelines.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-4210

Filed Date: 4/21/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/28/2022