United States v. Patterson ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-4992
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TYRICK PATTERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CR-04-111)
    Submitted:   January 27, 2006               Decided:   March 6, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne
    Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Tyrick   Patterson     pled    guilty     to   being    a    felon    in
    possession of a firearm in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1)
    (2000).      Initially,     the   district    court   overruled     Patterson’s
    objections    to   the    guideline   calculation      based   on       Blakely   v.
    Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004), and sentenced him to a term of
    twenty-one months imprisonment.           On appeal, Patterson argued that
    the district court erred in imposing sentence under a mandatory
    guideline scheme.        Without filing a brief, the government moved to
    vacate the sentence and remand the case to the district court for
    resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005).    We granted the motion and Patterson was resentenced to a
    term of nineteen months imprisonment. Patterson has not identified
    any error in the sentence imposed on remand.
    We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
    court.    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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4992

Judges: Williams, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 3/6/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024