United States v. Green , 404 F. App'x 758 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4045
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    DERRICK CHARLES GREEN,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00092-H-1)
    Submitted:   November 5, 2010             Decided:   December 10, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.   George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
    M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Derrick Charles Green appeals the sixty-month sentence
    imposed following his guilty plea to possession of fifty grams
    or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation
    of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2006).                On appeal, Green contends that
    the   district    court     procedurally          erred    in    sentencing       him    by
    failing   to   recognize         its    authority    to     reject      the     crack-to-
    powder-cocaine     sentencing          disparity.         The   Government       concurs.
    After carefully reviewing the record, we agree that the court
    procedurally     erred,     vacate       Green’s     sentence,       and      remand    for
    further   proceedings        in    light       of   Spears      v.     United     States,
    
    129 S. Ct. 840
    , 843-44 (2009) (“[D]istrict courts are entitled
    to    reject     and   vary       categorically       from       the     crack-cocaine
    Guidelines     based        on    a      policy     disagreement           with     those
    Guidelines.”).         We   dispense       with     oral    argument       because      the
    issues are adequately presented before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4045

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 758

Judges: Niemeyer, Davis, Keenan

Filed Date: 12/10/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024