US v. Junior Cotton


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cr-00021-FL-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000109955]. [15-4480]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4480 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4480 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUNIOR THOMAS COTTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:15-cr-00021-FL-1) Submitted: May 30, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4480 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/30/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Junior Thomas Cotton appeals his 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). Cotton challenges the district court’s calculation of his base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a) (2014), which establishes a higher offense level for defendants with a prior conviction for a crime of violence under USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2). Cotton argues that his prior conviction, which was deemed a crime of violence under the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), is no longer a crime of violence in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (striking Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause in crime of violence definition as unconstitutionally vague). We rejected that argument in United States v. Mack, __ F.3d __, No. 15-4684, 2017 WL 1544953 (4th Cir. May 1, 2017). Accordingly, Cotton’s challenge is foreclosed by our decision in Mack. We therefore 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?