United States v. Williams ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4441
MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-8-A)
Submitted: May 1, 1997
Decided: May 12, 1997
Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Timothy J. Shea,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Michael Williams pled guilty to escape from custody in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994), after he walked away from the Mini-
mum Security Facility of Lorton Reformatory without authorization.
Finding that the instant offense was a crime of violence and that Wil-
liams had two prior drug trafficking convictions, the district court
sentenced him as a career offender to a term of 46 months imprison-
ment. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual
(Nov. 1995). Williams appeals this sentence. We affirm.
In United States v. Dickerson, 77 F.3d 774, 777 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3259 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-
9207), we held that "the crime of felony attempted escape from cus-
tody, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a), in the abstract . . . consti-
tutes a crime of violence for purposes of the Career Offender
provision of the Sentencing Guidelines." Williams argues that his
case is distinguishable from Dickerson because he escaped from a
minimum security facility. His position is without merit because the
holding in Dickerson encompasses any escape or attempted escape.
Williams contends that Dickerson was wrongly decided; however, as
he acknowledges, a panel cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel
in this circuit. See Brubaker v. Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1381-82
(4th Cir. 1991).
The sentence is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2