United States v. Nathaniel Farmer , 585 F. App'x 854 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NATHANIEL JAMAL FARMER, a/k/a Gucci,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-11)
Submitted: November 17, 2014 Decided: December 1, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. John
David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Farmer appeals the district court’s criminal
judgment sentencing him to 151 months’ imprisonment pursuant to
his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to conduct a pattern
of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d)
and 1963(a) (2012). Farmer’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court erred in finding that Farmer was a career
offender. Although advised of his right to do so, Farmer did
not file a supplemental brief. The Government did not file a
response. We affirm.
Because Farmer did not object to his career offender
status in the district court, we review this issue for plain
error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
To be a career offender, (1) Farmer must have been at least
eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense of
conviction; (2) the instant offense must be a felony that is a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, and
(3) Farmer must have at least two prior felony convictions that
are either crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1. Farmer
contests element (3), claiming that his two prior felony
convictions for possession of cocaine with the intent to
2
distribute cannot be considered "prior felony convictions" for
career offender purposes because they were actually part of the
instant offense.
Our review of the record reflects that Farmer was
properly adjudged a career offender under the Guidelines. Where
the crime charged is racketeering, the Guidelines provide that a
“previously imposed sentence result[ing] from a conviction prior
to the last overt act” of the conspiracy, which is also charged
as “part of a pattern of racketeering activity,” is to be
treated as a prior sentence, not part of the instant offense.
USSG § 2E1.1 cmt. n.4 (internal quotation marks omitted). We
thus conclude that the district court did not plainly err in
counting the disputed convictions and holding that Farmer was a
career offender under the Guidelines. See United States v.
Marrone, 48 F.3d 735, 740-41 (3d Cir. 1995).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This Court
requires that counsel inform Farmer, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Farmer 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
3
was served on Farmer. 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
4