US v. Ricardo Williams, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for summary disposition (Local Rule 27(f)) [999771196-3]. Originating case numbers: 4:15-cr-00023-BO-1, 4:15-cr-00023-BO-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999961391]. [15-4522, 15-4523]

Appeal: 15-4522

Doc: 40

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RICARDO TYRONE WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-4523

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
QUINCY JAMEL HARGETT,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00023-BO-1; 4:15-cr-00023-BO-2)

Submitted:

October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.

and

MOTZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

November 3, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 15-4522

Doc: 40

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas P. McNamara,
Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Chief Appellate
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Geoffrey Ryan Willis, WILLIS
JOHNSON & NELSON, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4522

Doc: 40

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
A federal grand jury indicted Ricardo Tyrone Williams, Jr.
and Quincy Jamel Hargett each for possession of a firearm by a
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).

Williams

and Hargett moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that their
prior convictions did not qualify as felonies because they were
not punishable by a term exceeding one year.
granted

the

motions

and

dismissed

The district court

the

indictment.

The

Government appealed, and we previously granted the Government’s
motion to place these appeals in abeyance for our decision in
United States v. Barlow, 811 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2015), cert.
denied,

136

S.

Ct.

2041

(2016).

When

Government moved for summary reversal.
that

motion,

and

again

placed

the

Barlow

issued,

the

We deferred ruling on

appeals

in

abeyance

disposition of the petition for certiorari in Barlow.

for

When that

petition was denied, the parties fully briefed the issues.

For

the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand.
We review a district court's order dismissing an indictment
de novo.
2003).

United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589, 591 (4th Cir.

Under

imprisonment

North
for

Carolina

Hargett's

law,

prior

the

presumptive

offense

of

range

possession

of

of
a

stolen firearm was 6 to 17 months of imprisonment, and he was
sentenced to that range.

Williams was also sentenced to the

presumptive range of 8 to 19 months of imprisonment for his
3

Appeal: 15-4522

Doc: 40

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

prior conviction for possession with intent to sell marijuana.
Under

North

Carolina’s

Justice

Reinvestment

Act

of

2011,

however, both Hargett and Williams were required to be released
onto post-release supervision nine months before the expiration
of the their maximum sentences.

The district court determined

that because Hargett and Williams had to be released prior to
serving

12

months

of

incarceration,

those

offenses

were

not

punishable by terms exceeding 1 year of imprisonment.
In Barlow, however, we held that the term of post-release
supervision is part of the term of imprisonment.
137-40.

811 F.3d at

Therefore, we conclude that based on our decision in

Barlow, the district court erred in determining that Hargett and
Williams’

prior

convictions

were

not

predicate

offenses

for

purposes of § 922(g)(1).
Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion for summary
reversal, vacate the district court's orders, and remand with
instructions to reinstate the indictment.

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 in the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4