United States v. O'Neal ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                    No. 97-6153
    BLANE WADE O'NEAL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CR-92-212, CA-96-779)
    Submitted: November 20, 1997
    Decided: December 11, 1997
    Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Blane Wade O'Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Vir-
    ginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting in part
    and denying in part his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    1994 & Supp. 1997), and imposing a new sentence upon vacatur of
    his conviction and sentence under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 924
    (c)(1) (West
    1976 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and, to the extent that the district court granted Appel-
    lant's motion to vacate his conviction under § 924(c) and denied his
    motion on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we find no
    reversible error. Therefore, we affirm in part on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. O'Neal, Nos. CR-92-212; CA-96-779
    (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1996).
    However, the district court erred in imposing a new sentence with-
    out having Appellant present and represented by counsel. See Mempa
    v. Rhay, 
    389 U.S. 128
    , 135 (1967) (right to counsel extends to sen-
    tencing); United States v. Nolley, 
    27 F.3d 80
    , 82 (4th Cir. 1994) (pres-
    ence of defendant and counsel required upon resentencing after
    vacatur of original sentence). Therefore, we vacate the sentence and
    remand this case for resentencing with Appellant present and repre-
    sented by counsel unless, after proper inquiry, Appellant waives his
    right to counsel.
    Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, affirm in part,
    vacate the sentence imposed, and remand this case for resentencing
    with the Appellant present. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
    als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
    cess.
    AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED
    IN PART, AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-6153

Filed Date: 12/11/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014