United States v. Timothy Grier ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4537 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4537
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY JAROD GRIER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00385-WO-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J.
Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4537 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Jarod Grier pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute fentanyl,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Grier below
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 144 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Grier
challenges his career offender designation, arguing that his prior North Carolina
convictions pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(1) do not qualify as controlled substance
offenses after United States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2022), for purposes of U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 (2021). We affirm.
This court considers de novo whether a prior conviction is a controlled substance
offense under the Guidelines. United States v. Miller, 75 F.4th 215, 228-29 (4th Cir. 2023).
In Miller, we held that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a) “is a categorical match” with the
definition of a controlled substance offense in the Guidelines. Id. at 230-31. Thus, the
district court did not err in finding that Grier’s prior North Carolina convictions qualified
as controlled substance offenses under USSG § 4B1.2.
Accordingly, we affirm the 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