Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    United States v. Leon Burden, 940 F.2d 653, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Leon Burden's appeal of his 210 month prison sentence for distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that Burden was correctly classified as a career criminal based on his prior convictions for breaking and entering and larceny in North Carolina, which qualified as crimes of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Leon Burden, 940 F.2d 653, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Leon Burden's appeal of his 210 month prison sentence for distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that Burden was correctly classified as a career criminal based on his prior convictions for breaking and entering and larceny in North Carolina, which qualified as crimes of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1991-08-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 940 F.2d 653 Docket: 91-5376

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Leon Burden's appeal of his 210 month prison sentence for distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that Burden was correctly classified as a career criminal based on his prior convictions for breaking and entering and larceny in North Carolina, which qualified as crimes of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    23 views2 pages

    United States v. Leon Burden, 940 F.2d 653, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Leon Burden's appeal of his 210 month prison sentence for distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that Burden was correctly classified as a career criminal based on his prior convictions for breaking and entering and larceny in North Carolina, which qualified as crimes of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    940 F.

    2d 653
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Leon BURDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 91-5376.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 13, 1991.
    Decided Aug. 12, 1991.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR90-43-3-CR)
    Larry J. McLothlin, Fayetteville, N.C., for appellant.
    Margaret Person Currin, United States Attorney, Robert E. Skiver,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.
    E.D.N.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    Leon Burden pleaded guilty to distribution of 1.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000

    feet of a public school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 845a.


    Burden was determined to be a career criminal, with a mandatory criminal
    history category of VI. His offense level of 32, coupled with his criminal
    history category, dictated a sentence of 210-262 months. Burden was sentenced
    to imprisonment of 210 months. The only issue raised on appeal is whether
    Burden was correctly determined to be a career criminal under the Sentencing
    Guidelines. Because we hold that his prior North Carolina convictions for
    breaking and entering and larceny were properly treated as crimes of violence
    under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B2.1, we affirm the conviction.

    Under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.1, a defendant who is determined to be a career


    offender is assigned a criminal history category of VI. One is a career offender
    if (1) he was at least 18 when he committed the instant offense; (2) that offense
    was a felony and a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3)
    the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of
    violence or a controlled substance offense. In this case, Burden was 23 when he
    distributed cocaine, and the offense is a felony and a controlled substance
    offense. Additionally, he had three prior felony convictions in North Carolina
    of breaking and entering and larceny, arising from three separate incidents.

    Because those state offenses constituted burglaries of dwellings, as that term


    has been interpreted by the courts, Burden's convictions qualify as crimes of
    violence under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.2(1)(ii). See United States v. Cruz, 882 F.2d
    922, 923 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Davis, 881 F.2d 973, 976 (11th
    Cir.1989), cert. denied, 58 U.S.L.W. 3428 (U.S.1990); United States v. Pinto,
    875 F.2d 143, 144 (7th Cir.1989). Further, as those cases were decided before
    Burden's cocaine offense, we reject his argument that construing his North
    Carolina convictions as burglaries violates fundamental fairness.

    As our review of the materials before us reveals that it would not significantly
    aid the decisional process, we dispense with oral argument.

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like