United States v. Anthony Murray

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Anthony Murray

696 F. App'x 112

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2017

Docket16-4297

StatusUnpublished

This text of 696 F. App'x 112 (United States v. Anthony Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Anthony Murray, 696 F. App'x 112 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Jerrod Murray pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). The district court concluded that either of Murray’s prior North Carolina convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon or possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction warranted application of a base offense level of 20 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015). Murray appeals the 42-month sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that neither prior crime qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

“[W]e review de novo whether a defendant’s prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the career offender guideline.” United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 327-28 (4th Cir. 2017). Murray was indicted for, and pled guilty to, possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 (2015). We have previously held that such a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the residual clause of the Guidelines. * United States v. Hood, 628 F.3d 669, 672-73 (4th Cir, 2010). Although Murray argues that the residual clause is void for vagueness and, thus, that possession of a sawed-off shotgun no longer constitutes a crime of violence, the Supreme Court’s *113 decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), forecloses his argument.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

We need not address Murray’s arguments regarding his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Jerrod Murray pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). The district court concluded that either of Murray’s prior North Carolina convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon or possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction warranted application of a base offense level of 20 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015). Murray appeals the 42-month sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that neither prior crime qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

“[W]e review de novo whether a defendant’s prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the career offender guideline.” United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 327-28 (4th Cir. 2017). Murray was indicted for, and pled guilty to, possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 (2015). We have previously held that such a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the residual clause of the Guidelines. * United States v. Hood, 628 F.3d 669, 672-73 (4th Cir, 2010). Although Murray argues that the residual clause is void for vagueness and, thus, that possession of a sawed-off shotgun no longer constitutes a crime of violence, the Supreme Court’s *113 decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), forecloses his argument.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

We need not address Murray’s arguments regarding his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 F. App'x 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anthony-murray-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack