Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Quentin Davis, 4th Cir. (2011)
United States v. Quentin Davis, 4th Cir. (2011)
United States v. Quentin Davis, 4th Cir. (2011)
No. 10-4448
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00344-RBH-1)
Submitted:
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
MOTZ
and
KEENAN,
Circuit
PER CURIAM:
Quentin
Jerome
Davis
pled
guilty
pursuant
to
plea
841(a)
district
courts
and
846.
On
application
of
appeal,
the
Davis
challenges
Sentencing
the
Guidelines,
We affirm.
135
months.
The
district
court
imposed
sentence
of
120
months.
Davis objected to the assignment of one criminal history
point for the March 16, 2006, simple possession of marijuana/DUS
conviction, arguing that because the indictment involves a drug
conspiracy from at least October of 2005 up until the date of
the Indictment,
Driving
Under
which
was
Suspension
on
March
and
4th
Simple
of
2009,
Possession
of
the
Marijuana
conspiracy.
this
for
argument,
simple
J.A.
28-29.
concluding
possession
of
that
The
the
marijuana
district
March
was
16,
not
court
2006,
part
and
appeal,
Davis
raises
the
same
J.A. 31.
challenge
to
the
However,
4A1.1
excludes
convictions
for
conduct
that
qualifies
as
level.
See
U.S.S.G.
1B1.3(a).
In
drug
cases,
conduct
underlying
the
offense
of
conviction
since
it
court
reviews
district
courts
factual
determinations
error.
involved
suppliers
who
also
participated
in
the
during
the
conspiracy
however,
does
not
See U.S.S.G.
to
sentencing
on
the
instant
offense,
other
than
imposed
after
the
defendant's
commencement
of
a
A
the
was
(internal
part
of
citation
the
instant
omitted)).
offense.
The
(emphasis
underlying
added)
distribution
observed,
simple
the
possession
fact
that
suggested
the
the
Davis
conviction
was
holding
was
a
for
small
to
distribute).
Because
these
conclusions
were
on
the
court.
and
legal
foregoing,
We
dispense
contentions
we
affirm
with
are
oral
the
judgment
argument
adequately
of
the
because
the
presented
in
the
materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED