United States v. Todrick Quick ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4368
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TODRICK LAVONE QUICK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.       Thomas David
    Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00333-TDS-1)
    Submitted:   September 29, 2011           Decided: October 12, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
    per curiam opinion.
    James E. Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem,
    North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Todrick        Lavone      Quick         pleaded    guilty,     pursuant      to    a
    plea    agreement,           to   one     count      of    distribution        of   eighty-five
    grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount
    of     cocaine        base,       in     violation         of     21     U.S.C.     § 841(a)(1),
    (b)(1)(A) (2006), and one count of carrying and using a firearm
    during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation
    of    18   U.S.C.          § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)             (2006).         The   district      court
    sentenced Quick to a cumulative term of 180 months in prison.
    Quick now appeals, claiming that the district court
    erred      when       it    failed      to    apply       the     provisions      of   the    Fair
    Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) in imposing his sentence.                                       Quick
    has    filed      a    motion,         with   the       consent    of    the   Government,        to
    remand to the district court for resentencing in accordance with
    the    amendments           wrought      by    the       FSA.       We    grant     the   motion.
    Accordingly, we affirm Quick’s conviction, but we vacate Quick’s
    sentence and remand the case to the district court to permit
    resentencing.              By this disposition, however, we do not indicate
    a view as to whether the FSA is applicable to a defendant like
    Quick whose offense conduct occurred before the effective date
    2
    of the FSA, but who was sentenced after that date.      We leave
    that determination in the first instance to the district court.
    AFFIRMED IN PART,VACATED
    IN PART,AND REMANDED
    
    We note that at Quick’s sentencing hearing, counsel for
    the defendant unsuccessfully argued for application of the FSA.
    Nevertheless, in light of the Attorney General’s revised view on
    the retroactivity of the FSA, as well as the development of case
    law on this point in other jurisdictions, we think it
    appropriate, without indicating any view as to the outcome, to
    accord the district court an opportunity to consider the matter
    anew.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4368

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Shedd

Filed Date: 10/12/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024