U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2011

United States v. Daniel Lewis

United States v. Daniel Lewis
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided November 15, 2011 · Diaz, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkinson
453 F. App'x 344

Counsel

Stephen Clayton Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

United States v. Daniel Lewis

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Charles Lewis pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted *345 felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). The district court sentenced Lewis to 824 months’ imprisonment. Lewis appealed and filed an unopposed motion to vacate his conviction in light of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We grant the motion.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm. Under North Carolina’s structured sentencing regime, Lewis could not have received a custodial sentence of more than one year for his previous convictions given his criminal history. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1340.17 (c)-(d) (2009). Therefore, Lewis lacks the predicate conviction required to confer guilt under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). When the district court accepted Lewis’s plea, this argument was foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, however, we overruled Harp with our en banc decision in Simmons. In view of our holding in Simmons, we grant Lewis’s motion, vacate his conviction, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

We direct the clerk to issue the mandate forthwith. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.