US v. Eric Vershawn Mark


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4117 Doc: 50 Filed: 04/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4117 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC VERSHAWN MARKS, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?