US v. Anthony Murray


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00269-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000141372].. [16-4297]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4297 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4297 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY JERROD MURRAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00269-WO-1) Submitted: August 15, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter C. Holton, Jr., HOLTON LAW FIRM, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4297 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Anthony Jerrod Murray pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). The district court concluded that either of Murray’s prior North Carolina convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon or possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction warranted application of a base offense level of 20 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015). Murray appeals the 42-month sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that neither prior crime qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. “[W]e review de novo whether a defendant’s prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the career offender guideline.” United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 327-28 (4th Cir. 2017). Murray was indicted for, and pled guilty to, possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 (2015). We have previously held that such a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the residual clause of the Guidelines. * United States v. Hood, 628 F.3d 669, 672-73 (4th Cir. 2010). Although Murray argues that the residual clause is void for vagueness and, thus, that possession of a sawed-off shotgun no longer constitutes a crime of violence, the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017), forecloses his argument. * We need not address Murray’s arguments regarding his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery. 2 Appeal: 16-4297 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 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 3

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?