US v. Antoine Carr, No. 14-4045 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTOINE CHARLES CARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00098-TDS-1) Submitted: September 16, 2014 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and KING, Circuit Decided: Judges, September 25, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY & JOHNSON, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antoine Charles Carr appeals the 210-month sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2012). On appeal, Carr argues only imposing that the district court erred in a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act ( ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012), because he lacked the requisite number of predicate convictions in light of our decision States v. Davis, 720 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2013). We review interpretation de involving novo the United We affirm. questions application in of of the statutory ACCA. See United States v. Washington, 629 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Carr, 592 F.3d 636, 639 n.4 (4th Cir. 2010). Similarly, we interpretation review of the issues Guidelines relying de novo. upon the United legal States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010). A defendant is classified as an armed career criminal if he has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious different from drug one offense, or another. both, 18 committed U.S.C. on occasions § 924(e)(1). The statute does not define conviction, except to include juvenile 2 delinquency cases involving violent felonies. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(C). In contrast, a defendant is properly classified as a career offender if, among other requirements, he has at least two prior felony convictions for either a crime of violence or a controlled Manual substance ( USSG ) convictions offense. § 4B1.1(a) must carry U.S. (2012). sentences Sentencing At that least are Guidelines two counted of these separately under USSG § 4A1.2 (Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History). USSG § 4B1.2(c). In Davis, we held that a consolidated sentence under North Carolina law is a single sentence for purposes of the career offender enhancement. 720 F.3d at 216. We reached this conclusion based in large measure upon the plain language of USSG § 4B1.2(c), requiring predicate convictions to carry sentences that are counted separately. The ACCA contains no similar only language, convictions. conviction but instead requires three predicate We are not persuaded by Carr s argument that and sentence are materially indistinguishable; the term conviction primarily focuses on the determination of a defendant s guilt or innocence, while sentence is mainly concerned with the punishment imposed upon a finding of guilt. We also note consolidated that the criminal North Carolina sentences 3 statute specifically authorizing defines a consolidated judgment as resulting from See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.15 (2013). multiple convictions. As the district court properly determined, Davis does not apply to the ACCA, and Carr had the requisite number of ACCA predicate convictions despite his consolidated criminal judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
