Argued: January 31, 2019
from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:17-cr-00219-H-1)
L. DiLauro, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Justin Hawley pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon
in possession of a firearm and two counts of distributing
heroin. The district court sentenced him to fifty-seven
months' imprisonment, in part because his criminal
history included a prior sentence of thirty days'
imprisonment for an uncounseled misdemeanor offense.
Defendant argues that the district court contravened the
Sentencing Guidelines in calculating his criminal history by
counting the prior uncounseled misdemeanor that resulted in
imprisonment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm
August 8, 2017, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District
of North Carolina returned a superseding four-count
indictment charging Defendant with: (1) two counts of
possessing a firearm after being convicted of a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924; and
(2) two counts of distributing heroin, a Schedule I
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1). Thereafter, on November 6, 2017, Defendant pleaded
guilty to all four counts.
March 7, 2018, the district court conducted a sentencing
hearing. Before sentencing, the United States Probation
Office prepared a presentence report that calculated the
Defendant's offense level and criminal history category.
The Probation Office first determined that Defendant had an
offense level of 19. Next, considering Defendant's prior
offenses, the Probation Office determined that Defendant had
a criminal history score of 10, and thus Defendant had a
criminal history category of V. As relevant here, the
Probation Office added one point to Defendant's criminal
history score because Defendant pleaded guilty in April 2015
to the misdemeanor offense of providing false information to
a police officer and failure to wear a seatbelt. Defendant
did not dispute-and therefore conceded for purposes of this
appeal-that he validly waived his right to counsel in the
proceedings giving rise to that conviction and that he was