US v. Mario Holifield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cr-00009-JPJ-PMS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054343].. [16-4018]

Appeal: 16-4018

Doc: 44

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO ANTWAINE HOLIFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:15-cr-00009-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Jean
B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, Debbie H. Stevens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Beaver, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4018

Doc: 44

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mario

Antwaine

Holifield

appeals

his

188-month

sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to four controlled substance
offenses.

Holifield

challenges

his

designation

as

a

career

offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2014).
The Government seeks to invoke Holifield’s appellate waiver if
we

conclude

that

Holifield’s

prior

manslaughter

convictions

remain career offender predicates.
Holifield has two prior convictions for manslaughter, in
violation of Alabama law.

The Alabama manslaughter statute,

Ala. Code § 13A-6-3, corresponds to the generic definition of
manslaughter

in

USSG

§ 4B1.2

cmt.

n.1.

United

Peterson, 629 F.3d 432, 436–37 (4th Cir. 2011).
argument

that

his

prior

manslaughter

States

v.

Holifield’s

convictions

are

not

predicate crimes is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent
holding

that

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

“are

not

vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.”

subject

to

Beckles v.

United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781, at
*3 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017).

Holifield does not dispute that his

appellate waiver was knowing and voluntary, and his sentencing
challenge falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 16-4018

Doc: 44

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3