United States of America v. Akeem Olajuwan Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4747
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AKEEM OLAJUWAN DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00385-RJC-DCK-3)
Submitted: April 30, 2024 Decided: June 6, 2024
Amended June 7, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Richard L. Brown Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR., Monroe,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Akeem Olajuwan Davis pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of
distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and one count of
possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The
district court sentenced him to concurrent 108-month terms on each count, to be followed by
concurrent supervised release terms of four and three years respectively. On appeal, Davis’
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Davis’ within-Guidelines
sentence is procedurally reasonable. Davis was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a brief. We
affirm.
We review a criminal “sentence[]—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside
the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “must first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly calculating[] the Guidelines range, . . .
failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id.
at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, then we consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Any sentence that is within or
below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Davis’ counsel questions whether the district court erred in applying two-point
enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon, U.S Sentencing Guidelines Manual

-- 2 of 4 --

3
§ 2D1.1(b)(1), and for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing
a controlled substance, USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12). Upon review, we find that the record support
these enhancements. A confidential informant purchased cocaine base and firearms multiple
times from Davis at the residence in question, including a firearm and cocaine base together.
Thus, a weapon “was possessed in connection with drug activity that was part of the same
course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction.” United States v. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the record
as a whole supports that Davis had access to, and control over, the residence to conduct his
drug distribution operation from there. See United States v. Barnett, 48 F.4th 216, 220-21 (4th
Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 823 (2023). We therefore find that the enhancements were
properly applied.
The district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range as 87 to 108
months in prison. The court listened to the parties’ arguments, considered the § 3553(a)
factors, and explained its reasons for imposing a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines
range and declining to grant a downward variance. Davis’ sentence is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the imposition of
Davis’ sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court

-- 3 of 4 --

4
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Davis.
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

-- 4 of 4 --