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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?