United States v. Ford

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAEKWON CORTEZ FORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-4518

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

July 6, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: June 28, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00274-SAL-1)

ON BRIEF:

Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In 2021, a grand jury charged Raekwon Cortez Ford with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2018), in connection with his possession of a Ruger handgun on December 4, 2019. Ford pled guilty to the charge, and the district court sentenced him to 60 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Ford argues that the district court erred in applying Sentencing Guidelines enhancements for possession of semiautomatic weapons and possession of between three and seven total firearms. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), (b)(1)(A) (2018). The district court applied these enhancements to account for firearms that Ford possessed in June 2019 and November 2020. Ford contends that the court improperly considered those firearms because they were not part of "the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction," namely, his unlawful possession of a firearm on December 4, 2019. USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2). Finding no error, we affirm.

"In assessing whether a district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, including its application of any sentencing enhancements, [we] review[] the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error." United States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Ford "does not contend that the district court applied the incorrect legal rule, but instead challenges the factual analysis the district court conducted in applying the relevant conduct Guideline," our review is for clear error. United States v. Pineda, 770 F.3d 313, 319 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Under the clear error standard, we will only reverse if left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Savage 885 F.3d 212, 225 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Under USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2), relevant conduct for sentencing purposes includes "all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." Acts "may qualify as the 'same course of conduct' 'if they are sufficiently connected or related to each other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing series of offenses.'" United States v. McDonald, 28 F.4th 553, 563-64 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting USSG § 1B1.3 cmt. n.5(B)(ii)). Put differently, "the same-course-of-conduct standard requires only that the defendant be engaged in an identifiable pattern of certain criminal activity." Id. at 564 (cleaned up). Factors relevant to this inquiry include "the degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the offenses." USSG § 1B1.3 cmt. n.5(B)(ii).

Here each of Ford's episodes of firearm possession involved "similar core conduct in...