US v. Eric Vershawn Mark
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00141-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054333].. [15-4117]
Appeal: 15-4117
Doc: 50
Filed: 04/03/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC VERSHAWN MARKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00141-D-1)
Submitted:
March 30, 2017
Decided:
April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4117
Doc: 50
Filed: 04/03/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Vershawn Marks appeals his 151-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to distribution of a quantity of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012).
Marks
challenges
his
career
offender
designation
On appeal,
based
on
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which declared
the
residual
clause
of
unconstitutionally vague.
the
Armed
Career
Criminal
Act
Marks’ argument is foreclosed by the
Supreme Court’s recent decision that the Sentencing Guidelines,
including the career offender residual clause, “are not subject to
a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.”
Beckles v.
United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, ___, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781,
at *9 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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?