# United States v. Simmons

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 17, 2011 · 649 F.3d 237

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442185

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Edward SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant. North Carolina Advocates for Justice; Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Incorporated; Office of the Federal Public Defender, for the Middle District of North Carolina; Office of the Federal Public Defender, for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Amici Supporting Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 17, 2011
- **Citations:** 649 F.3d 237; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17038; 2011 WL 3607266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Duncan
- **Judges:** Traxler, Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Motz, King, Gregory, Shedd, Duncan, Agee, Davis, Keenan, Wynn, Diaz
- **Cited by:** 442 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442185

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the evaluation of whether a prior conviction was a felony must focus on the maximum sentence for which a particular defendant was eligible, in light of his own criminal history, rather than the maximum sentence that could be imposed on a defendant with the worst p…
- holding that a district court must look to whether a particular defendant could receive more than one year in prison based upon his offense class and prior record level to determine whether a prior North Carolina conviction may serve as a career offender predicate offense
- explaining that, "be- cause no findings of recidivism or aggravation appear in Sim- mons’s state record of conviction, those enhancements may not be considered in determining whether Simmons’s offense constitutes a ‘felony drug offense’ under [ 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)]"
- explaining that, “because no findings of recidivism or aggravation appear in Simmons’s state record of conviction, those enhancements may not be considered in determining whether Simmons’s offense constitutes a ‘felony drug offense’ under [21 U.S.C. § 841(b) ]”
- stating that, for prior North Carolina convictions where no aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, test is whether defendant could receive more than one year in prison based upon his offense class and prior record level

## Opinion text

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I am in complete agreement with Judge Agee’s thoughtful dissent and write separately only to explain the basis of my conviction that the statutory language must cabin our inquiry. Although I have the greatest respect for the majority’s attempts to grapple with Carachuri, I remain unconvinced that that decision, based on an unrelated, civil statutory scheme, offers any clear direction here. In that sense, it is not unique. As Justice Scalia recently observed, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has hardly distilled ACCA’s murky waters. Derby v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2858, 2860 , — L.Ed.2d-(2011) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (characterizing the Supreme Court’s ACCA decisions as “incomprehensible to judges”). In such circumstances, it is particularly compelling that we navigate those waters by the plain light of the statutory text.
Here, that text does not ask whether the defendant had a “prior conviction” for which he could be punished by more than one year of imprisonment. To the contrary, it compels us to determine whether the defendant had a prior conviction for “an offense that is punishable” by more than one year of incarceration under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(D). Under North Carolina law, Simmons’s Class I felony offense was so punishable. See N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 15A-1340.17, 90-95(a). In my view, that ends our inquiry.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442185. Public record. Not legal advice.