US v. Derrick Green
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00092-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998482911] [10-4045]
<![CDATA[
US v. Derrick Green
Doc. 0
Case: 10-4045 Document: 32
Date Filed: 12/10/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DERRICK CHARLES GREEN, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00092-H-1) Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: December 10, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-4045 Document: 32
Date Filed: 12/10/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Derrick Charles Green appeals the sixty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of fifty grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). the district to court procedurally its On appeal, Green contends that erred to in sentencing the him by
failing
recognize
authority disparity.
reject
crack-toconcurs.
powder-cocaine
sentencing
The
Government
After carefully reviewing the record, we agree that the court procedurally further erred, vacate in Green's of sentence, Spears v. and remand for
proceedings
light
United
States,
129 S. Ct. 840, 843-44 (2009) ("[D]istrict courts are entitled to reject and based We vary on categorically a policy with from the crack-cocaine with those the
Guidelines
disagreement oral argument
Guidelines.").
dispense
because
issues are adequately presented before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED
2
]]>
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?
