US v. Morey Champion

Filing 920100623

Download PDF
Rehearing granted, August 6, 2010 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5084 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOREY BERNAL CHAMPION, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00381-FL-1) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury indicted Morey Bernal Champion for possession of one a of a firearm after by of having a term previously of been convicted exceeding (2006). crime year, punishable in violation imprisonment 922(g)(1) 18 U.S.C. Champion filed a motion to dismiss the indictment that Champion then entered a guilty plea the district court denied. to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court sentenced Champion to fifty-one Finding no months of imprisonment and Champion now appeals. error, we affirm. On erred review in a appeal, his Champion motion argues to that the the district indictment. to court We an denying district dismiss of a court's denial motion dismiss indictment de novo. (4th Cir. 2002) United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 310 (citation omitted); see United States v. Thornton, 554 F.3d 443, 445 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing whether state felony offense is a crime of violence de novo). Champion violating possession argues that he his was legally innocent of for not While 922(g)(1) with intent because to prior conviction was distribute marijuana punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. Champion's argument is concededly foreclosed by United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005), he argues that the 2 subsequent decisions in United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 337 (2008), and United States v. Pruitt, 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2008), have undermined this court's holding in Harp. thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant We have legal authorities and conclude that our holding in Harp is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez. Further, to the extent Pruitt may be inconsistent with Harp, decisions by our sister circuits are simply not binding upon this court. We court. legal therefore affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?