United States v. Daniel Lewis

453 F. App'x 344, 2011 WL 5532247
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 15, 2011
Docket11-4171
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 453 F. App'x 344 (United States v. Daniel Lewis) 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. Daniel Lewis, 453 F. App'x 344, 2011 WL 5532247 (4th Cir. 2011).

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Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

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

Related

State v. Lewis
752 S.E.2d 216 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 F. App'x 344, 2011 WL 5532247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-daniel-lewis-ca4-2011.