US v. Gregory Coker, Jr., No. 19-4516 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4516 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY PRESTON COKER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:18-cr-00477-DCC-1) Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William G. Yarborough, III, Lauren C. Hobbis, WILLIAM G. YARBOROUGH III, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Coker, Jr., appeals the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2018). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court properly sentenced Coker as a career offender. South Carolina Code § 44-53-375 and § 44-53-445 are subject to the modified categorical approach, see United States v. Furlow, 928 F.3d 311, 320-22 (4th Cir. 2019); United States v. Marshall, 747 F. App’x 139, 149-50 (4th Cir. 2018) (argued but unpublished), so the district court correctly considered Coker’s prior indictments and sentencing sheets pursuant to Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005). Based on those documents, the district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that Coker had two prior controlled substance convictions pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2 (2018). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s criminal 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.