United States v. Tramel Reddick ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAMEL DESHAN REDDICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00344-JAB-1)
Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: October 3, 2011
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; vacated in part and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tramel Deshan Reddick appeals his 180-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006).
Reddick’s sole claim on appeal is that a prior state
drug conviction should not have been counted by the district
court as a felony for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)
because the maximum sentence he could have received was less
than twelve months. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17(c)-(d)
(setting out minimum and maximum sentences applicable under
North Carolina’s “structured sentencing” regime). We affirm in
part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing.
When Reddick raised this argument in the district
court, it was foreclosed by our decision in United States v.
Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, however,
we overruled Harp with our en banc decision in United States v.
Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011). Although we affirm
Reddick’s conviction, we grant the parties’ motion to vacate his
sentence in light of Simmons, and remand to the district court
for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED
3