United States v. Travis Knox ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4520
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS KNOX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00019-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Angela G. Parrott, Acting Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal,
Allison Wexler, Assistant Federal Defenders, Asheville, North
Carolina; Emily Marroquin, Assistant Federal Defender,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Knox pled guilty to seven counts of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base (“crack”). Counts 1-6
had no drug amounts, but Count 7 listed five grams or more of
crack. Knox was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment. On
appeal, Knox’s sole issue is that he should have been sentenced
under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111–
220. Currently pending before this court is the Government’s
unopposed motion to remand this case to the district court to
allow Knox to be resentenced in accordance with the FSA.
Based on our consideration of the materials submitted
with this motion, we grant the motion to remand, vacate the
sentence, and remand this case to the district court to permit
resentencing. By this disposition, however, we indicate no view
as to whether the FSA is retroactively applicable to a defendant
like Knox whose offenses were committed prior to August 3, 2010,
the effective date of the FSA, but who was sentenced after that
date, leaving that determination in the first instance to the
district court. ∗ Because Knox does not contest his convictions
on appeal, we affirm his convictions.
∗
See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 n.5 (4th
Cir. 2011) (reserving judgment on the question “whether the FSA
could be found to apply to defendants whose offenses were
committed before August 3, 2010, but who have not yet been
sentenced”).
2
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
3