Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Rodney Burrell was convicted following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine *239 base and aiding and abetting another in the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). At sentencing, Burrell asserted that his prior North Carolina conviction for possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana (“marijuana conviction”) did not qualify as a felony controlled substance offense, as required for the career offender enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1 (2010), because his sentence for that conviction did not exceed twelve months’ imprisonment. 1 The district court denied the objection, relying on United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005), classified Burrell a career offender, and sentenced Burrell to 300 months’ imprisonment. Burrell timely appealed.

In his opening brief, Burrell reasserted the argument that his North Carolina marijuana conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and, thus, that the conviction could not serve as a predicate for the career offender enhancement. After briefing was completed, Burrell filed a motion to vacate his sentence and to remand this case to the district court for resentencing in light of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The Government consents to the remand. We grant the motion to remand, vacate Burrell’s sentence, and remand this case to the district court for resentencing. Further, we affirm Burrell’s conviction, which is not challenged on appeal.

Burrell’s prior North Carolina conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17(c)-(d) (2009) (setting out minimum and maximum sentences applicable under North Carolina’s structured sentencing scheme). When Burrell raised this argument in the district court, it was foreclosed by our decision in Harp. Subsequently, however, we overruled Harp with our en banc decision in Simmons, in which we sustained a similar argument in favor of the defendant. See Simmons, 649 F.3d at 241, 246^47. In view of our holding in Simmons, we grant the motion to remand, vacate Burrell’s sentence, 2 and remand this case to the district court for resen-tencing. 3 Finally, we affirm Burrell’s conviction. 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.