UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JONTAVIS DAMETRA MILLER, a/k/a Jontavis Dametre Miller, a/k/a Jontavis Danetre Miller,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00235-RJC-DCK-1)

Argued: January 27, 2021 Decided: March 31, 2021

Before KING, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Richardson joined.

ARGUED: Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony Joseph Enright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Andrew Murray, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, Jontavis Miller challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, asserting that the district court erred in computing his criminal history score under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines). After pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Miller was sentenced to serve a term of 63 months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release. He asserts that, in determining his sentence, the district court erred in adding one criminal history point under Guidelines Section 4A1.1(c) based on his North Carolina conviction for possession of marijuana, which was treated under North Carolina law as a prayer for judgment continued (the PJC disposition). Upon our review, we hold that the district court did not err in computing Miller’s criminal history score, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.

In January 2019, Miller pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In the presentence report (PSR), in calculating Miller’s criminal history score, the probation officer added one point under Guidelines Section 4A1.1(c), which directs that an additional point be given for prior sentences of fewer than 60 days. The probation officer assigned Miller this additional point based on the possession of marijuana charge in North Carolina state court that was resolved through the PJC disposition. As discussed further below, a PJC is a type of deferred disposition under North Carolina law, under which the court renders an adjudication of guilt but entry of final

2 judgment is not required. In Miller’s case, the record shows that the state court never entered a final judgment or any other disposition of the charge.

At sentencing in the district court, Miller challenged the probation officer’s calculation of the additional criminal history point based on the PJC disposition. Miller argued that a criminal history point should not have been added because no sentence or probationary term had been imposed in the North Carolina case. The district court overruled Miller’s objection on the basis that there had been an adjudication of guilt prior to the PJC disposition. Accordingly, Miller’s Guidelines range was set at 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. After hearing further argument from the parties, the court imposed sentence on Miller as noted above.

II.

On appeal, Miller argues that his North Carolina PJC disposition does not qualify as a conviction under Guidelines Section 4A1.1(c). He contends that North Carolina does not treat a PJC disposition as a final judgment and that, therefore, the same result is required