United States v. Vandarian Canty

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 25, 2022
• Docket: 22-4020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VANDARIAN CANTY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00160-D-1)

Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 25, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Vandarian Canty pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924, and possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced

Canty to 87 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no meritorious issues for

appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in counting a June 2019 traffic stop

as relevant conduct. * See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2) (2018).

Although notified of his right to do so, Canty has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We

affirm the district court’s judgment.

Because the district “court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 1B.13 depended on an

evaluation and weighing of the factual details, . . . we review the court’s decision for clear

error.” United States v. McVey, 752 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir. 2014). Here, relevant conduct

includes “all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common

scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2). “[O]ffenses may

qualify as the same course of conduct if they are sufficiently connected or related to each

other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing

series of offenses.” United States v. McDonald, 28 F.4th 553, 563-64 (4th Cir. 2022)

(internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “the same-course-of-conduct standard

* Counsel correctly recognizes that this issue affects both the total offense level and Canty’s criminal history score.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 4

requires only that the defendant be engaged in an identifiable pattern of certain criminal

activity.” Id. at 564 (cleaned up). “Relevant factors include the degree of similarity of the

offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the

offenses.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But “when one of the above factors is

absent, a stronger presence of at least one of the other factors is required.” Id. (cleaned

up).

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err. Canty’s charges arose from

firearms and crack cocaine recovered after three encounters with law enforcement between

March and November 2020. The district court included as relevant conduct a firearm that

was recovered during a traffic stop that occurred in June 2019. All four encounters were

substantially similar—Canty possessed a firearm when he was prohibited from doing so.

Although there was a nine-month interval between the June 2019 and March 2020

incidents, we have found an eight-month gap was not so large as to preclude a finding of

relevant conduct for a felon-in-possession offense. Id. at 565-66 & n.8.

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

found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Canty 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 Canty.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 4 of 4

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