United States v. Williams

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4441

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-8-A)

Submitted: May 1, 1997

Decided: May 12, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Timothy J. Shea, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael Williams pled guilty to escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994), after he walked away from the Mini- mum Security Facility of Lorton Reformatory without authorization. Finding that the instant offense was a crime of violence and that Wil- liams had two prior drug trafficking convictions, the district court sentenced him as a career offender to a term of 46 months imprison- ment. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1995). Williams appeals this sentence. We affirm.

In United States v. Dickerson, 77 F.3d 774, 777 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3259 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95- 9207), we held that "the crime of felony attempted escape from cus- tody, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a), in the abstract . . . consti- tutes a crime of violence for purposes of the Career Offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines." Williams argues that his case is distinguishable from Dickerson because he escaped from a minimum security facility. His position is without merit because the holding in Dickerson encompasses any escape or attempted escape. Williams contends that Dickerson was wrongly decided; however, as he acknowledges, a panel cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel in this circuit. See Brubaker v. Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1381-82 (4th Cir. 1991).

The sentence is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process.

AFFIRMED