United States v. Andiza Simmons

708 F. App'x 114
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 8, 2018
Docket16-4237
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 708 F. App'x 114 (United States v. Andiza Simmons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Andiza Simmons, 708 F. App'x 114 (4th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with a written plea agreement, Andiza Simmons pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). He was sentenced to 80 months in prison. Simmons now appeals, raising one issue. We affirm.

According to Simmons’ presentence investigation report, he previously had sustained at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. The two offenses were South Carolina strong arm robbery and distribution of crack cocaine. In light of the prior convictions, Simmons’ base offense level was 24. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(2) (2014). Simmons contends on appeal that the strong arm robbery conviction was erroneously treated as a qualifying crime of violence under the Guideline,

Simmons’ claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1831, 197 L.Ed.2d 773 (2017). In Doctor, we held that South Carolina strong arm robbery is a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012) (ACCA). Id. at 312. Decisions evaluating whether an offense qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA are dispositive of whether the offense also qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines. United States v. Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357, 363 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Doctor controls in this case, and strong arm robbery was properly found to be a qualifying crime of violence under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(2).

We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davis v. United States
W.D. North Carolina, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
708 F. App'x 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-andiza-simmons-ca4-2018.