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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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