United States v. Terrance Williams , 449 F. App'x 246 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-4065
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TERRANCE ANTWAN WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
    (S. Ct. No. 09-9351)
    Submitted:   September 30, 2011           Decided:   October 6, 2011
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated          in   part,   and
    remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.   George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
    M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Terrance Antwan Williams pled guilty, without a plea
    agreement, to possession with intent to distribute more than
    fifty     grams     of      cocaine           base,     in     violation         of    21    U.S.C.
    §§ 841(a)(1),          (b)(1)(A)         (2006),        possession         of    a    firearm      in
    furtherance       of    a    drug       trafficking          crime,    in    violation        of   18
    U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and possession of a firearm after having
    been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of
    imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006).                                           On
    appeal, he argues that he was legally innocent of being a felon
    in    possession       of    a     firearm       because        his    two      North       Carolina
    convictions       for       possession          with    intent        to    sell      and    deliver
    marijuana were not punishable by a term of imprisonment greater
    than one year.           For the same reason, he argues that he should
    not have been sentenced under the career offender provision of
    the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
    We recently held that, when deciding whether a North
    Carolina        conviction         is     a     predicate        offense        for    sentencing
    enhancements       purposes,            the    federal        Controlled        Substance      Act’s
    inclusion of offenses “punishable by imprisonment for more than
    one     year”    refers       to    the        maximum        sentence      that      the    actual
    defendant       could       have    received,           not    one    with      a     more   severe
    criminal    history          or    one        subject    to     an    aggravated        sentence.
    United States v. Simmons, No. 08-4475, 
    649 F.3d 237
    , 
    2011 WL 2
    3607266,    at   *3    (4th   Cir.    Aug.    17,   2011)   (en   banc).     Thus,
    because    Williams’s     underlying      North     Carolina   convictions   were
    not punishable by a term exceeding one year, Williams’s conduct
    — possessing a firearm — did not violate § 922(g), and he was
    not   properly        sentenced      as   a    career    offender    under    the
    Guidelines. 1
    Accordingly, although we affirm Williams’s § 841 and
    § 924 convictions, we reverse his conviction for possession of a
    firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by
    more than one year of imprisonment.                 We vacate his sentence and
    remand for resentencing in accordance with Simmons. 2                We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    1
    The district court did not, of course, have the benefit of
    Simmons at the time of Williams’s guilty plea and sentencing
    proceedings.    We do not fault the district court or the
    Government for applying established circuit precedent in the
    earlier proceedings.
    2
    In light of our decision to vacate the sentence and remand
    for resentencing, we decline to address Williams’s claim that
    the district court failed to address his arguments against the
    crack/powder sentencing disparity. At resentencing, the current
    version of the Guidelines will apply.     We express no opinion,
    however, on the sentence to be imposed on remand.
    3
    adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   the   court   and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED   IN PART,
    REVERSED   IN PART,
    VACATED   IN PART,
    AND   REMANDED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-4065A

Citation Numbers: 449 F. App'x 246

Judges: Duncan, King, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/6/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023