USCA4 Appeal: 23-4205 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID BRANDON WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-4205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID BRANDON WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00273-CCE-1; 1:23-cr- 00033-CCE-1)

Submitted: August 23, 2024 Decided: September 30, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4205 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 5

Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ames C. Chamberlin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4205 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:

In 2011, David Brandon Watson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute

cocaine and marijuana, in violation of

(a)(1), and possession of a firearm

in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of

(c)(1)(A). The

district court sentenced Watson to a total of 90 months’ imprisonment, followed by five

years’ supervised release. In 2022, while on supervised release, Watson pled guilty,

pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation

of

(g)(1). Based on that offense and the conduct surrounding it, Watson

admitted that he had violated the terms of his supervised release. The district court

therefore revoked Watson’s supervised release.

The court sentenced Watson below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 72

months’ imprisonment for his new criminal conviction and below the policy statement

range to 24 months’ imprisonment for the supervised release violations, to run

consecutively. Watson appeals from both judgments. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California,

(1967), questioning whether the district court erred

in establishing Watson’s base offense level for his new criminal offense under the

Guidelines by counting his prior federal § 841(a) conviction as a controlled substance

offense (No. 23-4204), and whether the court properly calculated the policy statement

range by determining that Watson’s most serious violation of supervised release was a

grade A violation (No. 23-4205). We affirm.

We “consider[] de novo whether a prior conviction is a controlled substance offense

under the Guidelines.” United States v. Miller,

(4th Cir. 2023)

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4205 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/30/2024 Pg: 4 of 5

(internal quotation marks omitted). The district court applied an enhanced base offense

level after finding that Watson’s prior § 841(a) conviction qualified as a controlled

substance offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(2). A controlled

substance offense is “an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for

a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or

dispensing of a controlled substance . . . or the possession of a controlled

substance . . . with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.” USSG

§ 4B1.2(b). While this appeal was pending, we held that a federal conviction for

distribution of, or possession with intent to distribute, a controlled substance pursuant to

(a)(1) categorically qualifies as a controlled substance offense under the

Guidelines. United States v. Groves,

(4th Cir. 2023). Thus, the district

court did not err in applying the base offense level under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(2).

With respect to the district court’s calculation of the policy statement range for

Watson’s supervised release violations, under USSG § 7B1.1(a)(1), p.s., a violation is a

grade A violation if it included conduct constituting “a federal, state, or local offense

punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year that . . . is a controlled substance

offense.” Here, the probation officer noted that Watson had been charged in North Carolina

state court with possession with intent to sell controlled substances for the conduct

underlying the new § 922(g) conviction. We held in United States v. Miller,

(4th Cir. 2023), that North Carolina’s possession with intent to deliver statute

categorically qualified as a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. Therefore,

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4205 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/30/2024 Pg: 5 of 5

the district court did not err in calculating Watson’s most serious supervised release

violation as a grade A violation.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in these cases and

have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s

judgments. This court requires that counsel inform Watson, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Watson requests that

a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Watson.

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

5