Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-4482
Submitted:
September 8, 2011
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
In
possessing
2004,
Derrick
firearm
Lamont
during
and
Summers
in
pled
relation
to
guilty
to
crime
of
judgment
colloquy
of
do[es]
conviction,
not
show
that
charging
the
document
defendant
or
plea
faced
the
precluded
qualifying
from
offense
establishing
triggering
that
the
application
conviction
of
the
is
sentencing
According to
Summers, since the maximum prison term he faced for the North
Carolina offense underlying the violation was ten months, the
offense was not punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding
one
year.
See
U.S.
Sentencing
7B1.1(a)(A)(1)(ii) (2008).
2
Guidelines
Manual
with
the
worst
possible
criminal
history),
and
Harp.
Cir.
2010)
(No.
09-4482)
(unpublished).
Summers
filed
petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, and the
Supreme
Court
criminal
vacated
judgment
this
and
courts
remanded
the
judgment
case
to
affirming
this
the
court
for
court
will
affirm
sentence
imposed
after
See United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 43940 (4th Cir. 2006).
first
assess
the
sentence
for
reasonableness,
We
follow[ing]
United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) (In
applying
the
determine,
States,
plainly
using
552
U.S.
unreasonable.).
the
unreasonable
instructions
38,
51
standard,
given
(2007)],
in
Gall
whether
we
first
[v.
United
sentence
is
run[s]
clearly
afoul
of
settled
law.
United
States
v.
Simmons, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3607266, *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 17,
2011), that a North Carolina offense may not be classified as a
felony based upon the maximum aggravated sentence that could be
imposed upon a repeat offender if the individual defendant was
not eligible for such a sentence.
have received a sentence greater than ten months for the North
Carolina crime underlying the challenged violation, the district
court procedurally erred when it calculated Summers sentencing
range and his sentence is, thus, procedurally unreasonable.
Because
Summers
objected
to
his
sentencing
range
F.3d
at
546.
The
analysis
of
See Thompson,
plainly
in
plainly
trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of
appeal.
2005)
(quoting
Johnson
v.
United
States,
520
U.S.
461,
468
supervening
settled
decision
law).
district
When
court,
his
decision in Harp.
no
longer
good
prior
Summers
challenge
to
appeal
reverses
challenged
was
his
clearly
that
well-
sentence
in
the
foreclosed
by
our
under
Carachuri-Rosendo,
however,
the
Government
prove
that
the
error
did
not
have
States
v.
Lynn,
592
F.3d
572,
585
(4th
Cir.
2010)
regarding
Violation
One,
5
the
Government
cannot
establish harmlessness.
court
explicitly
considered
defendants
nonfrivolous
and
remand
resentencing. *
and
legal
materials
the
matter
to
the
district
court
for
contentions
before
the
are
court
adequately
and
argument
presented
in
the
would
aid
the
not
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED