United States v. Leroy Raymond Griffin

Summary

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Leroy Raymond Griffin’s 120-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute heroin. The court upheld sentencing enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon, leadership role, and engaging in criminal conduct as a livelihood, and rejected Griffin’s claim that counsel lacked an adequate opportunity to argue at sentencing. The unpublished per curiam opinion found no meritorious issues under Anders v. California.

Holdings

1. The district court did not clearly err in applying the two-level enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) because the firearm recovered from Griffin's codefendant's residence was connected to the jointly undertaken drug-distribution activity and it was not clearly improbable that the firearm was connected with Griffin's offense.
2. The district court did not clearly err in applying the four-level organizer-or-leader enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(a).
3. The district court properly applied the two-level enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E) for committing the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood.
4. The sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district court heard Griffin's allocution, considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, thoroughly explained the sentence, and permitted counsel to argue extensively regarding the Guidelines range and the § 3553(a) factors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court clearly erred by applying a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon during a drug offense under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1).
2. Whether the district court clearly erred by applying a four-level organizer-or-leader enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(a).
3. Whether the district court properly applied the two-level enhancement for committing the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E).
4. Whether the district court's sentencing procedure was unreasonable because it failed to provide Griffin's counsel an adequate opportunity to argue concerning the Guidelines range and the sentence.
5. Whether any meritorious issue existed after the court's Anders review of the record.

Disposition

affirmed