United States v. Harold Ford

447 F. App'x 484
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 27, 2011
Docket10-4176
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 447 F. App'x 484 (United States v. Harold Ford) 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. Harold Ford, 447 F. App'x 484 (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

Reversed and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harold Ford was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). The district court sentenced Ford to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment. Ford appealed, arguing that his prior conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and, thus, could not serve as a predicate conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Ford has moved to vacate his conviction and remand the case to the district court. In light of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc), we reverse.

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. Ford’s prior North Carolina state 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 Ford raised this argument in the district court, it was foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir.2005). Subsequently, however, we overruled Harp with our en banc decision in Simmons, in which we sustained a similar argument in favor of the defendant. In view of our holding in Simmons, we reverse Ford’s conviction, deny as moot the motion to vacate, and remand the case 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.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

Related

United States v. Harold Ford
703 F.3d 708 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
447 F. App'x 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harold-ford-ca4-2011.