US v. George Whitmire

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 4:04-cr-00483-TLW-1, 4:15-cv-03406-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999936266]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6369]

Appeal: 16-6369

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/27/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6369

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GEORGE WILLIAM WHITMIRE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:04-cr-00483-TLW-1; 4:15-cv-03406-TLW)

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Decided:

September 27, 2016

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George William Whitmire, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Arthur
Bradley
Parham,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6369

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/27/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
George

William

Whitmire

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find that the court misapplied the concurrent sentence doctrine
because

it

is

not

reasonably

certain

from

the

record

that

adverse collateral consequences will not flow from Whitmire’s
designation

as

an

armed

career

criminal.

See

Benton

v.

Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 787-91 (1969); United States v. Hill,
859 F.2d 325, 326 (4th Cir. 1988) (discussing doctrine); United
States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1981) (stating
that a court must be able to “foresee with reasonable certainty
that

no

adverse

collateral

consequences

will

redound

to

the

defendant”).
Accordingly,
vacate

the

proceedings.

we

district

grant
court’s

a

certificate
order,

and

of

appealability,

remand

for

further

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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

2