US v. Dewer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWIGHT MARCEL DEWER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00476-NCT)
January 24, 2008
February 21, 2008
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, David P. Folmar, Jr., Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Dwight Marcel Dewer pled guilty to possession of twentyfour grams of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007), and was sentenced within the advisory guideline range to a term of seventy months imprisonment. that the district court Dewer appeals his sentence, arguing in declining to consider the
disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses and the pending guideline amendment intended to reduce the disparity as grounds for a variance below the guideline range. explained below, we vacate the sentence For the reasons remand for
resentencing. At the time Dewer was sentenced, our circuit precedent did not permit the sentencing court to impose a variance sentence based on the disparity in sentences prescribed under the guidelines for crack and powder cocaine offenses. See United States v. Eura,
440 F.3d 625, 634 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that 100:1 ratio could not be basis for variance), vacated, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2008 WL 59208 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2008) (No. 05-11659). Since the parties' briefs were filed, the Supreme Court decided, in Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), that "it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence
`greater than necessary' to achieve § 3553(a)'s purposes, even in
- 2 -
a mine-run case." abrogated Eura.
Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007). A sentence within a correctly calculated advisory guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 246269 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for withinguidelines sentence). However, in deciding not to vary below the
guideline range in this case, the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Kimbrough. To give the
district court an opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Kimbrough, we conclude that resentencing is necessary. We resentencing therefore in light vacate of the sentence On and remand the for
guidelines for crack offenses, effective November 1, 2007, will be applicable. 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
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?