US v. Morey Champion
Rehearing granted, August 6, 2010
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
June 17, 2010
June 23, 2010
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
punishable in violation
imprisonment § 922(g)(1)
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
dismiss of a
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
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
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?