United States v. Cedric Canzater

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4343 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC DOUGLAS CANZATER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cr-00613-CMC-1)

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 20, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Adam S. Ruffon, RUFFIN LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Bryan P. Stirling, United States Attorney, Elle E. Klein, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4343 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Douglas Canzater appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of fentanyl,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and four counts of possession with intent

to distribute and distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court found that Canzater’s prior 2008 drug

conviction was a predicate serious drug felony for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A),

thereby increasing the statutory mandatory minimum from 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Canzater argues that the district court erred by finding that his 2008 drug

conviction was a predicate serious drug felony for purposes of § 841(b)(1)(A) because the

Government did not prove that he was released from imprisonment for that offense “within

15 years of the commencement of the instant offense.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(58)(B).

Specifically, he contends that his release date of May 3, 2013, was “artificial” because the

2008 drug conviction was a “last minute add on,” tethered to, and fully subsumed by, his

concurrent sentence, imposed on the same day, for a 2008 firearm conviction. We affirm.

We review de novo an appellant’s claim that the district court erred in concluding

that his prior conviction triggered 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)’s enhanced mandatory

minimum. United States v. Skaggs, 23 F.4th 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2022). A defendant who

commits “a violation [of § 841(a) punishable under § 841(b)(1)(A)] after a prior conviction

for a serious drug felony . . . has become final[] . . . shall be sentenced to a term of

imprisonment of not less than 15 years.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). A “serious drug

felony” is defined as “an offense described in [18 U.S.C. §] 924(e)(2) . . . for which – (A)

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4343 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

the offender served a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months; and (B) the offender’s

release from any term of imprisonment was within 15 years of the commencement of the

instant offense.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(58). An offense described in § 924(e)(2) includes “an

offense under the Controlled Substances Act.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(i).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Canzater’s 2008 drug conviction

qualifies as a “serious drug felony” under § 841(b). The district court sentenced Canzater

for both the drug offense and the firearm offense on the same day in November 2008,

imposing an 84-month sentence for each charge, to be served concurrently. Canzater was

released from imprisonment on May 3, 2013. We have held that “concurrent sentences

remain separate and distinct terms of imprisonment even though they are served

simultaneously.” Skaggs, 23 F.4th at 345 (finding appellant served more than 12 months’

imprisonment for serious drug felony when sentenced to six 26-month concurrent

sentences because he served each one in its entirety). Thus, Canzater served “one day of

each of his” concurrent 84-month sentences at the same time—and, consequently, was

released from these sentences at the same time. See id. As a result, we conclude that his

May 2013 release from imprisonment for his 2008 drug conviction is within 15 years of

commencement of the instant offense, which began in February 2023.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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