United States v. Shakoor Stevenson , 460 F. App'x 221 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAKOOR STEVENSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00036-JFM-1; 1:10-cr-00247-JFM-1)
Submitted: November 23, 2011 Decided: December 28, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc L. Resnick, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shakoor Stevenson pled guilty to distribution of and
possession with the intent to distribute five grams or more of
cocaine base, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006).
He reserved the right to appeal any finding that he is a career
offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 4B1.1
(2009). The district court determined that Stevenson was a
career offender and imposed a sentence of 136 months of
imprisonment. Stevenson appeals his sentence, arguing that the
court erred in classifying him as a career offender.
The district court’s conclusion that Stevenson was a
career offender was grounded in its determination that
Stevenson’s prior conviction for the Maryland common law offense
of resisting arrest is a crime of violence under USSG § 4B1.1.
Stevenson’s challenge to this conclusion is squarely foreclosed
by our recent decision in United States v. Jenkins, 631 F.3d 680(4th Cir. 2011). Because a panel of this court cannot overrule
the decision of a prior panel, see United States v. Rivers, 595
F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir. 2010), Jenkins requires rejection of
Stevenson’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Stevenson’s
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3