United States v. Champion

384 F. App'x 249

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MOREY BERNAL CHAMPION,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00381-FL-1)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and Writing Specialist, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

A federal grand jury indicted Morey Bernal Champion

for possession of a firearm after having previously been

convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment

exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

(2006). Champion filed a motion to dismiss the indictment that

the district court denied. Champion then entered a guilty plea

to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his

motion to dismiss. The court sentenced Champion to fifty-one

months of imprisonment and Champion now appeals. Finding no

error, we affirm.

On appeal, Champion argues that the district court

erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We

review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an

indictment de novo. United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 310

(4th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see United States v.

Thornton, 554 F.3d 443, 445 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing whether

state felony offense is a crime of violence de novo).

Champion argues that he was legally innocent of

violating § 922(g)(1) because his prior conviction for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana was not

punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. While

Champion’s argument is concededly foreclosed by United States v.

Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005), he argues that the

2 subsequent decisions in United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 337

(2008), and United States v. Pruitt, 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir.

2008), have undermined this court’s holding in Harp. We have

thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal

authorities and conclude that our holding in Harp is consistent

with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez. Further, to the

extent Pruitt may be inconsistent with Harp, decisions by our

sister circuits are simply not binding upon this court.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district

court. 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 in the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED