US v. Haste

Filing 920080909

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4266

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUSTIN BENJAMIN HASTE, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 07-7412) Submitted: July 8, 2008 Decided: September 9, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court. Justin Benjamin Haste, Jr., was previously

convicted and sentenced to 180 months in prison after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. '' 922(g)(1) and 924(e) (2000). Although Haste conceded he had two predicate offenses for armed career criminal status under the Armed Career Criminal Act (AACCA@), 18 U.S.C. ' 924(e) (2000), he asserted before the district court and this court that a third conviction for felonious possession of a weapon of mass destruction under N.C. Gen. Stat. ' 14-288.8 (2005) should not have been considered a Aviolent felony@ under the ACCA. United We disagreed and affirmed the district court=s judgment. States v. Haste, 234 F. App=x 70 (4th Cir. See

2007)

(unpublished).

The Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded

the case for further consideration in light of United States v. Begay, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008). Having carefully reviewed the

Supreme Court=s opinion, we conclude that a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. ' 14-288.8 is not a Aviolent felony@ under the ACCA. Accordingly, we vacate Haste=s sentence and remand this matter to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

2

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3