United States v. Herring
United States v. Herring
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4437
RALPH SAMUEL HERRING, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-28)
Submitted: November 3, 1998
Decided: November 18, 1998
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
John E. Davidson, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Ralph Samuel Herring appeals from the sentence imposed on him by the district court following revocation of Herring's supervised release. It is undisputed that the sentence imposed was calculated based on an improper characterization of the underlying offense as a Class B felony. Consequently, we vacate Herring's sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Herring had served sixty months in prison for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime,
18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1998), and was serving a three year term of supervised release when he tested positive for marijuana use. At his supervised release revocation hearing, the district court heard argu- ment concerning whether the underlying offense was a Class B or a Class D felony. Under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 1998), the district court could impose up to three years in prison if the under- lying offense was a Class B felony or up to two years in prison if the underlying offense was a Class D felony. Concluding that Herring's § 924(c) conviction qualified as a Class B felony, the district court sentenced him to twenty-seven months in prison. On appeal, both par- ties agree that this was incorrect.
Under
18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(2), (4) (1996), a felony carrying a max- imum sentence of twenty-five years or more is a Class B felony and a felony carrying a maximum penalty of less than ten years but five years or more is a Class D felony. Violations of§ 924(c) carry a man- datory five year prison term. Thus, a § 924(c) offense constitutes a Class D felony. See United States v. Jones,
24 F.3d 1544, 1545(6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Corey,
999 F.2d 493, 496(10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Robertson,
901 F.2d 733, 734(9th Cir. 1990).
Because Herring's § 924(c) conviction qualified as a Class D fel-
2 ony, the statutory maximum sentence he could receive was two years in prison. Herring's twenty-seven month sentence exceeds the statu- tory maximum. Consequently, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED _________________________________________________________________ *This court's decision renders moot Herring's argument that his twenty-seven month sentence was unreasonable.
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished