United States v. David Troy, III

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 13
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7725
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID TROY, III, a/k/a Buck Troy,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00811-TLW-4)
Argued: January 27, 2023 Decided: March 29, 2023
Before HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge
Harris and Senior Judge Keenan joined.
ARGUED: Jeremy A. Thompson, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Foster Bower, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: M. Rhett
DeHart, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 13
DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge:
David Troy III appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404
of the First Step Act. Troy argues that the district court abused its discretion when it chose
to retain his original sentence despite reducing his Guidelines range to account for his
erroneous designation as a career offender. But the First Step Act does not permit a district
court to recalculate a defendant’s benchmark Guidelines range “in any way other than to
reflect the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act.” Concepcion v. United
States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2402 n.6 (2022). Arguments based on other changes in law must
be considered after determining the benchmark Guidelines range that will “anchor” the
proceeding. Id. Since the Fair Sentencing Act did not affect Troy’s original Guidelines
range, that range provides the appropriate starting point for our review. Given that starting
point, the district court’s retention of his original sentence was both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.
I.
In 2004, Troy participated in the attempted robbery of Clifton Blackstock, a drug
dealer in Georgetown County, South Carolina. Troy and his accomplices planned to
impersonate police officers, pull Blackstock over, and rob him of money and drugs. But
as Troy approached Blackstock’s door armed with a nine-millimeter handgun, he thought
he saw Blackstock reach for a gun of his own. Troy fired at Blackstock, hitting him in the
face. He and his accomplices fled empty-handed. Blackstock, though severely wounded,
survived.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 3 of 13
Troy pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 grams of cocaine
base or 500 grams of cocaine, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, discharging a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm
as a convicted felon. As part of his plea agreement, Troy cooperated with the
Government’s investigation of a group of corrupt North Carolina police officers with
whom Troy had committed various crimes, including robbing other drug dealers.
In calculating a recommended sentence, the probation office determined Troy was
a career offender based in part on a North Carolina conviction for possession of cocaine
with intent to sell for which Troy received a ten-month suspended sentence. Because of
his career offender status, Troy’s initial Guidelines range was 382–447 months. The
district court then granted the Government’s motion for a four-level downward departure
based on Troy’s cooperation, which reduced his Guidelines range to between 235 and 293
months of imprisonment. Ultimately, the court imposed a total sentence of 276 months.
Almost 15 years after his initial sentencing, Troy moved for a sentence reduction
under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, which gives retroactive effect to “the provisions
of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . that reduced sentencing disparities between cocaine
and crack cocaine offenses.” United States v. Swain, 49 F.4th 398, 399 (4th Cir. 2022).
Though the Government opposed Troy’s motion, the parties agreed on three key points:
(1) Troy was eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act, (2) Troy should not have
received a career offender enhancement because, pursuant to United States v. Simmons,
649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), his North Carolina conviction under that state’s
Structured Sentencing Act was not a valid predicate offense, and (3) absent the Simmons
3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 4 of 13
error, his Guidelines range would have been 121–151 months. 1 Nevertheless, the
Government urged the district court to decline to reduce Troy’s sentence because of his
criminal history and the violence of his offense.
The district court agreed. The court found Troy eligible for resentencing and
concluded that, after recalculating Troy’s Guidelines range to correct the Simmons error,
his “ultimate sentencing range would be 121 to 151 months.” But rather than immediately
rule on Troy’s motion for a sentence reduction, the court invited the parties to file
supplemental briefs because it was “considering an upward departure or variance . . . based
on the facts set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report and taken into consideration
at the original sentencing.”
In response, Troy argued that the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favored a
reduction of his sentence. He emphasized that his recalculated Guidelines range already
accounted for the violence of his offense, that the only other violent crime for which he
had been convicted — assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury — occurred
when he was 17, that he had never served a sentence longer than six months before the
conduct that led to his current incarceration, that the public had already been protected
from him for 15 years, that his current age (48) reduced the likelihood of recidivism, and
1
In Simmons, we held that a conviction under North Carolina’s Structured
Sentencing Act is “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” only if the
defendant himself was exposed to a potential prison sentence greater than one year. 649
F.3d at 243. At the time of Troy’s original sentencing, by contrast, we considered “the
maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with
the worst possible criminal history.” United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir.
2005), overruled by Simmons, 649 F.3d at 241.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 5 of 13
that in light of his corrected Guidelines range, retaining his original sentence would
effectively deny him credit for his cooperation.
The district court listed these arguments and stated that it had “carefully considered”
them but concluded that Troy’s proposed Guidelines range “fail[ed] to adequately address
the egregious conduct in this case, particularly when coupled with [Troy’s] criminal
history.” In addition to highlighting the details of the robbery and Troy’s prior record, the
court specifically rejected the “proposition that [Troy] ha[d] aged out of . . . violent
conduct,” in large part because Troy committed the violent acts for which he had been
sentenced while in his 30s. The court also recounted “the process” that led to Troy’s initial
sentence, explaining that because it granted Troy a reduction in his Guidelines range to
reward his cooperation, Troy’s sentence was significantly lower than his initial sentencing
range. The court then explained that when it imposed that sentence, “it had no expectation
that, years later, there would be a change in the law that provides for a possible reduction”
in Troy’s sentence. Accordingly, it denied Troy’s motion and retained his original 276-
month sentence.
Troy timely appealed, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of
the district court’s decision.
II.
Before we can resolve the merits of Troy’s appeal, we must consider the effect of
the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. 2389.
Prior to Concepcion, we held that a district court considering a sentence reduction
motion under the First Step Act must correct retroactive Guidelines errors when
5
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 6 of 13
recalculating a movant’s benchmark Guidelines range. See United States v. Chambers,
956 F.3d 667, 673–75 (4th Cir. 2020). Relying on Chambers, Troy, the Government, and
the district court in this case agreed that Troy’s Guidelines range had to be recalculated to
account for the Simmons error at his original sentencing.
But in Concepcion, decided after the briefing in this appeal, the Supreme Court held
that:
A district court cannot . . . recalculate a movant’s benchmark Guidelines
range in any way other than to reflect the retroactive application of the Fair
Sentencing Act. Rather, the First Step Act directs district courts to calculate
the Guidelines range as if the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments had been in
place at the time of the offense. That Guidelines range “anchor[s]” the
sentencing proceeding. Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 541, 133 S.
Ct. 2072, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013). The district court may then consider
postsentencing conduct or nonretroactive changes in selecting or rejecting an
appropriate sentence, with the properly calculated Guidelines range as the
benchmark.
142 S. Ct. at 2402 n.6 (emphasis added) (alteration in original). 2
In other words, Concepcion instructs district courts exercising their discretion under
the First Step Act to proceed in two steps. First, they must recalculate the movant’s
Guidelines range “only to the extent it adjusts for the Fair Sentencing Act.” United States
v. Shields, 48 F.4th 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2022); see also Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2402 n.6,
2403 n.8. Second, they may (and when raised by the parties, must) consider other legal
The parties submitted supplemental briefs as to “what effect, if any, Concepcion
2
has on calculating the ‘benchmark Guidelines range’ in a First Step Act sentencing
proceeding.” Order, United States v. Troy, No. 20-7725, ECF No. 41. Both Troy and the
Government maintain that Concepcion did not abrogate in any way our previous decision
in Chambers. For the reasons set forth within, we cannot agree.
6
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 7 of 13
and factual changes when deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence. Concepcion,
142 S. Ct. at 2396, 2402 n.6.
Thus, while a district court may consider other changes in the law when determining
what reduction, if any, is appropriate in an individual case, the proper “benchmark” for the
district court’s analysis (and for our review) is the impact of the Fair Sentencing Act on the
defendant’s Guidelines range. Id. at 2402 & n.6. Because Chambers instructed district
courts to recalculate a movant’s Guidelines range based on “intervening case law”
unrelated to the Fair Sentencing Act, 956 F.3d at 672–75, that holding of Chambers does
not survive Concepcion.
The district court did not err in acknowledging the impact of the Simmons error on
Troy’s Guidelines range — indeed, it was necessary to do so. Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at
2404. But the court should not have done so until after it determined the appropriate
starting point for Troy’s First Step Act proceedings. Id. at 2402 n.6. The correct
benchmark was Troy’s original Guidelines range, 235 to 293 months, which was
unaffected by the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act. 3
III.
With those principles in mind, we turn to the district court’s denial of Troy’s motion
for a sentence reduction, which we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Reed,
58 F.4th 816, 819 (4th Cir. 2023). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision to
3
Though the district court erred by recalculating Troy’s benchmark Guidelines
range to correct the Simmons error, that error was harmless. Even using the lower
Guidelines range produced by correcting the Simmons error as its benchmark, the court still
found Troy’s original sentence warranted.
7
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 8 of 13
retain or reduce a sentence under the First Step Act is procedurally or substantively
unreasonable. Id. at 820; Swain, 49 F.4th at 399.
A.
We begin by considering whether the district court’s denial of Troy’s motion was
procedurally reasonable. In resolving a motion under the First Step Act, a district court’s
discretion is broad and its burden light. Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404. District courts
are not required to modify a sentence “for any reason” and may reject arguments they
consider unconvincing in “a brief statement of reasons” and “without a detailed
explanation.” Id. at 2402, 2404. But when district courts consider such motions, they must
still “sentence the whole person before them,” “explain their decisions,” and “demonstrate
that they considered the parties’ arguments.” Id. at 2398, 2404. Thus, for its resolution of
a First Step Act motion to be procedurally reasonable, a district court must “consider a
defendant’s arguments, give individual consideration to the defendant’s characteristics in
light of the § 3553(a) factors, determine—following the Fair Sentencing Act—whether a
given sentence remains appropriate in light of those factors, and adequately explain that
decision.” United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 360 (4th Cir. 2021).
Troy contends that the district court committed three procedural errors. We address
each in turn.
1.
Troy initially claims that the district court should have responded more thoroughly
to his arguments about the length of his prior sentences, the amount of time he had already
served, and his current age. But the court considered each of these arguments and found
8
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 9 of 13
them unconvincing. The court explained that it had considered “the length of [Troy’s]
prior sentences,” that “the public has been protected from [Troy] for almost 15 years,” and
that “his current age reduces the likelihood of recidivism.” It then explained why it
believed the nature of the offense and Troy’s lengthy and sometimes violent criminal
history justified his current sentence. Moreover, in addressing Troy’s arguments related to
his youth at the time of his previous assault conviction, the Court pointed to the conduct
underlying his current conviction (which occurred when Troy was in his 30s) to explicitly
reject the “proposition that [Troy] has aged out of . . . violent conduct.”
This explanation satisfies the “low bar” Concepcion set for district courts
considering First Step Act motions. Reed, 58 F.4th at 823. The court was not required to
“make a point-by-point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments.” Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2405.
It is enough that its opinion made clear why it found Troy’s arguments unpersuasive. See
Reed, 58 F.4th at 823–24.
Troy also asserts that the district court should have explicitly addressed his
contention that, had he been charged with attempted murder, his Guidelines range would
have been comparable to the lower Guidelines range produced by correcting the Simmons
error. But Troy offered this counterfactual in support of his larger argument that the
Guidelines already accounted for the seriousness of his offense. The district court
addressed that argument at length, concluding that the lower Guidelines range that would
have applied absent the Simmons error “fail[ed] to adequately address the egregious
conduct in this case,” particularly given Troy’s criminal history. Having rejected Troy’s
9
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 10 of 13
“central thesis,” the court was not obliged “to address separately each supporting data point
marshalled on its behalf.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 214 (4th Cir. 2020).
2.
Troy next argues that the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for
rejecting “the First Step Act’s resentencing mechanism” and the lower Guidelines range
that correcting the Simmons error would have produced. Br. for Appellant at 20–21. In
particular, he objects to the court’s remark that “[a]t the time the Court imposed this 23-
year sentence, it had no expectation that, years later, there would be a change in the law
that provides for a possible reduction.”
Of course, the denial of a First Step Act motion may be unreasonable if based on a
disagreement with Congress’ decision to eliminate the sentencing disparity between
offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. See Swain, 49 F.4th at 403; United States v.
Smith, 959 F.3d 701, 703 (6th Cir. 2020). But eliminating that disparity had no impact
here. Accordingly, the district court’s rejection of this argument does not manifest any
disagreement with Congress’ “central goal” in enacting the First Step Act. Concepcion,
142 S. Ct. at 2402.
Nor did the district court refuse to consider Troy’s argument regarding the Simmons
error in his Guidelines range. Rather, the court emphasized the “process that occurred after
[Troy] pled Guilty,” to explain why it believed Troy’s original sentence was “the ‘right’
sentence,” even though correcting the Simmons error would have produced a lower
Guidelines range. Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966 (2018). Thus, the
10
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 11 of 13
court found that Troy’s 23-year sentence was “still appropriate today when applying the
§ 3553(a) factors.” That finding was procedurally reasonable.
3.
Third, relying on United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 2015), Troy asserts
that the district court failed to sentence him individually. Troy bases this argument on the
district court’s comment that it would “impose the same sentence . . . on this defendant or
any other defendant who committed similar conduct with a similar criminal background.”
In Lymas, the district court imposed the same sentence on three codefendants,
despite their different roles in the offenses and distinct Guidelines ranges. Id. at 109–11.
It reasoned that the defendants “should receive the same sentence and should be punished
equally across the board for what they did.” Id. at 111. We vacated all three sentences,
explaining that the court had ignored many of the § 3553(a) factors and “essentially
sentenced the crime itself rather than the individual defendants.” Id. at 113.
Here, by contrast, examination of the record demonstrates that the district court
sentenced Troy individually. In denying Troy’s motion, the court emphasized Troy’s
specific role in the robbery and his individual criminal history. Indeed, at Troy’s original
sentencing, the court explicitly stated that the different “circumstances” of Troy and his
codefendants would (and did) produce different sentences. The court explained at the time
that Troy deserved the highest sentence because he was the one “who fire[d] the shots.”
Taken in context, the court’s comment was appropriately directed at justifying Troy’s
sentence, not at “sentenc[ing] the crime itself.” Lymas, 781 F.3d at 111.
11
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 12 of 13
B.
Troy also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. To determine
whether the denial of a First Step Act motion is substantively reasonable, we consider
whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the district court “abused its discretion in
concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Reed,
58 F.4th at 820 (quoting Swain, 49 F.4th at 402). “[D]isagreement with how a district court
balances the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to overcome the district court’s discretion.”
Swain, 49 F.4th at 403. Because Troy’s original Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months is
the appropriate benchmark for our review, the 276-month sentence retained by the district
court is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519–20 (4th
Cir. 2017).
Troy relies on United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014), to argue that
the district court placed too much weight on his conviction for an assault he committed
when he was 17. But unlike the defendant in Howard, Troy’s juvenile offense was “not
the sole, or even primary, basis for the district court’s decision.” See Nance, 957 F.3d at
216 (distinguishing Howard). Here, the district court emphasized not just Troy’s juvenile
assault conviction, but his “lengthy criminal record” that extended into adulthood.
Moreover, the violence of the offense for which Troy was convicted increased the
relevance of his earlier assault conviction. By contrast, the crime for which Howard was
sentenced did not involve “any assaultive or other physically violent behavior.” Howard,
773 F.3d at 535 n.12. Finally, while in Howard the district court deviated upwards from
12
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7725 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 13 of 13
the Guidelines range of 120–121 months to impose a life sentence, id. at 524, here the
district court did not deviate from the proper Guidelines range at all.
Troy also claims that the district court’s emphasis on the violence of the offense
“cannot withstand serious scrutiny.” Br. for Appellant at 29. He argues that if he had been
sentenced for attempted murder, his Guidelines range would have been “comparable to his
correct sentencing range in this case.” Id. But again, Troy’s “correct sentencing range”
for the purposes of his First Step Act motion is 235 to 293 months. Furthermore, the district
court did not rely solely on the violence inherent in shooting a man in the face. Instead,
the court considered the shooting in conjunction with “the highly-orchestrated attempted
robbery itself” and Troy’s “prior conviction for violent conduct.” Moreover, Troy’s
hypothetical ignores the complexity of the sentencing process. For example, if Troy were
sentenced for attempted murder and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, his Guidelines range would be ten years higher than if he were sentenced
for attempted murder alone. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b). Given these
facts, the weight the district court placed on the violence of Troy’s offense was
substantively reasonable.
IV.
The district court considered Troy’s arguments and provided an adequate
explanation for retaining his original sentence. Because its denial of Troy’s motion was
both procedurally and substantively reasonable, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
13