United States v. James
This text of United States v. James (United States v. James) 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.
Opinion
ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4950
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBIELL DEANGELO JAMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-03-148)
Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: May 20, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beattie B. Ashmore, PRICE, PASCHAL & ASHMORE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Robiell Deangelo James petitions this court for rehearing
of his earlier appeal. In light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir.
2005), we grant the petition for rehearing and find that the
district court plainly erred in imposing a sentence that exceeded
the maximum allowed based on facts established by James’ guilty
plea. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing
consistent with Hughes. 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
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. James, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-ca4-2005.