United States v. Devin Taylor

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4774 DEVIN TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-98-454) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Thanos Kanellakos, THANOS KANELLAKOS, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Mary- land, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Devin Taylor appeals his 262-month sentence based upon a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999). Taylor con- tends that the sentencing court erred in finding he was a career offender based upon his prior state court conviction for escape from custody. Taylor argues this prior state conviction was not a "crime of violence" under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 (1998). Because Taylor's sentence fell within the two overlapping, dis- puted guidelines ranges and because the court expressly announced the sentence it imposed would have been the same under either guide- lines range, review of the issue presented by Taylor is unnecessary. See United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 432-33 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 931 (2d Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, we affirm Taylor's sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2