US v. Morey Champion

Filing 920100623

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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