United States v. Marks
This text of 683 F. App'x 227 (United States v. Marks) 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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Eric Vershawn Marks appeals his 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to distribution of a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). On appeal, Marks challenges his career offender designation based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which declared the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague. Marks’ argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the career offender residual clause, “are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.” Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 892, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
683 F. App'x 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marks-ca4-2017.