United States v. Randolph , 276 F. App'x 336 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5230
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYNISA DOVON RANDOLPH,
Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 06-6445)
Submitted: April 16, 2008 Decided: May 1, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States
Attorney, David E. Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tynisa Dovon Randolph pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000). At sentencing, Randolph requested
a variance from the sentencing guidelines based on the 100:1
disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and cocaine powder
offenses. The district court believed it was constrained to defer
to the guidelines and sentenced Randolph to the low end of the
properly calculated guidelines range of imprisonment. On appeal,
we affirmed her sentence, noting her challenge to the sentencing
disparity was foreclosed by United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625(4th Cir. 2006) (holding that 100:1 ratio could not be used as
basis for variance), vacated, 128 S. Ct. 853 (2008). See United
States v. Randolph, 185 F. App’x 225 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 05-5230).
On January 7, 2008, the Supreme Court granted Randolph’s petition
for writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded
the case for further consideration in light of Kimbrough v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). See Randolph v. United States, 128
S. Ct. 854 (2008).
In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court held that “it would not
be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when
sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity
yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s
purposes, even in a mine-run case.” Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575.
- 2 -
Kimbrough has thus abrogated Eura. Although this court has held
that a sentence within a correctly calculated advisory guideline
range is presumptively reasonable, see United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127
S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence), in this case, the
district court did not have the benefit of Kimbrough when it
determined Randolph’s sentence.
To give the district court the opportunity to reconsider
the sentence in light of Kimbrough, we vacate Randolph’s sentence
and remand the case for resentencing.* We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
On remand, the amended Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses,
effective November 1, 2007, will apply.
- 3 -