US v. Derrick Hamilton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00143-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998702500].. [10-4924]

Appeal: 10-4924

Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/18/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4924

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DERRICK LORENZO HAMILTON, a/k/a Eric Lorenzo Johnson,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00143-RJC-1)

Submitted:

September 23, 2011

Decided:

October 18, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Rahwa
Gebre-Egziabher, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4924

Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/18/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Derrick

Lorenzo

sentence

imposed

upon

appeal,

Hamilton

Hamilton

revocation

claims

that

the

appeals
of

the

supervised

district

eighteen-month
release.

court

On

erroneously

determined that he had committed a Grade A supervised release
violation, exposing him to a sentencing range of 18-24 months.
We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Hamilton argues, as he did below, that he could have
been sentenced to no more than ten months in prison pursuant to
his North Carolina state conviction for possession with intent
to sell and deliver marijuana.

We are unable to determine from

the record on appeal whether Hamilton’s position is correct.
If, as claimed, he was subject to only ten months in prison,
application of our recent decision in United States v. Simmons,
649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), would appear to compel
the conclusion that Hamilton committed a Grade C violation of
release.

This, in turn, would result in a significantly reduced

range of imprisonment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 7B1.4 (2010).
We accordingly vacate and remand for resentencing.

We

express no opinion as to whether Hamilton’s state conviction
qualifies as a Grade C supervised release violation and leave
this determination to the district court on remand.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 10-4924

Document: 27

adequately

Date Filed: 10/18/2011

presented

in

the

Page: 3 of 3

materials

before

argument would not aid the decisional process.

the

court

and

The Clerk is

directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3