US v. Kalife Crenshaw, No. 12-4326 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4326 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KALIFE CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00456-RDB-1) Submitted: October 26, 2012 Decided: November 2, 2012 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kalife Crenshaw pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 months imprisonment, the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). Crenshaw appeals his sentence, arguing that the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme in § 924(e) conflicts with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). We affirm. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. United States v. Joshua, 607 F.3d 379, 382 (4th Cir. 2010). Section 924(e)(1) requires a minimum sentence of 180 months imprisonment for a violation of § 922(g) by a person with three or more previous convictions serious drug offenses. for either violent felonies or Section 3553(a), the general sentencing statute, sets forth factors for the district court to consider during sentencing and mandates that a court impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary. Section 3551(a) defines the scope of § 3553(a) so as to eliminate any conflict with mandatory minimum sentences, providing that sentencing shall be effected pursuant to § 3553(a) except as otherwise specifically provided. Courts have 18 U.S.C. § 3551(a) (2006). rejected the assertion that § 3553(a) conflicts with statutorily-mandated sentences, finding that the otherwise specifically provided language of § 3551(a) includes 2 mandatory minimum sentences. E.g., United States v. Sutton, 625 F.3d 526, 529 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Kellum, 356 F.3d 285, 289 (3d Cir. 2004) (mandatory minimum sentences clearly fit within the except exclusion of 3551(a) ). as otherwise specifically provided In addressing a similar issue, we have likewise recognized that a district court has no discretion to impose a sentence outside of the statutory range established by Congress for the offense of conviction. United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005). Applying this reasoning, we conclude that no conflict exists between § 3553(a) and the statutorily-imposed mandatory minimum sentence sentence thus in fails. court s judgment. facts and materials legal before § 924(e). Crenshaw s Accordingly, we challenge affirm the to his district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
