United States v. Akeem Davis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 22-4747
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AKEEM OLAJUWAN DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00385-RJC-DCK-3)

Submitted: April 30, 2024 Decided: June 6, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Richard L. Brown Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR., Monroe, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Akeem Olajuwan Davis pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of

distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and one count

of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The

district court sentenced him to concurrent 108-month terms on each count, to be followed

by concurrent supervised release terms of four and three months respectively. On appeal,

Davis’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Davis’

within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally reasonable. Davis was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file

a brief. We affirm.

We review a criminal “sentence[]—whether inside, just outside, or significantly

outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “must first ensure that the district court

committed no significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly calculating[] the

Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to

adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from

the Guidelines range.” Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, then we

consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the

circumstances.” Id. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir.

2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

Davis’ counsel questions whether the district court erred in applying two-point

enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon, U.S Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), and for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or

distributing a controlled substance, USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12). Upon review, we find that the

record support these enhancements. A confidential informant purchased cocaine base and

firearms multiple times from Davis at the residence in question, including a firearm and

cocaine base together. Thus, a weapon “was possessed in connection with drug activity

that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of

conviction.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Further, the record as a whole supports that Davis had access

to, and control over, the residence to conduct his drug distribution operation from there.

See United States v. Barnett, 48 F.4th 216, 220-21 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct.

823 (2023). We therefore find that the enhancements were properly applied.

The district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range as 87 to 108

months in prison. The court listened to the parties’ arguments, considered the § 3553(a)

factors, and explained its reasons for imposing a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines

range and declining to grant a downward variance. Davis’ sentence is both procedurally

and substantively reasonable. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the imposition

of Davis’ sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4747 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Davis.

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