US v. Michael Old

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:96-cr-00030-F-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998784501]. [10-4338]

Appeal: 10-4338

Document: 38

Date Filed: 02/09/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 10-10612)

Submitted:

January 26, 2012

Decided:

February 9, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, 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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4338

Document: 38

Date Filed: 02/09/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
After finding that Michael Dennis Olds had violated
the terms of his supervised release, the district court revoked
release

and

sentenced

him

to

thirty

months

in

prison-—

significantly above Olds’ recommended Guidelines range of fiveeleven months.
that

the

In imposing sentence, the district court stated

variant

sentence

was

warranted

by

Olds’

need

for

intensive drug therapy and the need to protect society from his
ongoing drug use.
Olds appealed, arguing that his sentence was plainly
unreasonable.

We

affirmed.

subsequently

vacated

the

However,
judgment

the
and

Supreme

Court

remanded

for

reconsideration in light of Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct.
2382 (2011).

United States v. Olds, 420 Fed. App’x 260 (4th

Cir.), vacated, 132 S. Ct. 452 (2011).

In Tapia, the Supreme

Court held that sentencing courts are precluded “from imposing
or

lengthening

rehabilitation.”

a

prison

term

to

promote

an

offender’s

Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2391.

The district court did not have the benefit of Tapia
when it determined Olds’ sentence.

To give the district court

an opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Tapia, we
conclude

that

resentencing

is

necessary.

Accordingly,

the

sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 10-4338

Document: 38

Date Filed: 02/09/2012

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court

and

argument

would

not

adequately

aid

the

decisional

process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3