UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4839
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES D. IZAC, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-02-58)
Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Warren Bennett, Sicilia S. Chinn, BENNETT & LAWLOR, LLP,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Jeb T. Terrien, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles D. Izac, Jr. was indicted on one count of unlawful
possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a
felony. Before trial, the Government filed a motion in limine
seeking to preclude Izac from presenting a justification defense.
The district court initially denied the motion. The Government
later renewed its motion, and after conducting a hearing the
district court ruled that Izac did not meet the standard of proof
required to present a justification defense. Izac then entered a
conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district
court’s ruling on the availability of the justification defense.
The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Izac to 180
months’ imprisonment. Izac now appeals the district court’s order
granting the Government’s motion in limine.
We recently held that a conditional guilty plea is not valid
if it purports to preserve for appeal a non-case-dispositive issue.
United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 647 (4th Cir. 2004). The
issue sought to be preserved for appeal in this case -- whether the
defendant was entitled to present a justification defense -- is not
case-dispositive. A favorable ruling for Izac would not
necessarily result in dismissal of the charge against him; rather,
such a ruling would merely allow him to make an additional argument
at trial. See id. at 648. Accordingly, Izac’s purported
conditional guilty plea is invalid.
2
The record makes clear the parties’ understanding that Izac
pled guilty only on the condition that he be permitted to appeal
the district court’s ruling on the Government’s motion in limine.
Thus, we cannot say that Izac’s plea was unconditional. See id. at
649. “Because there is no valid plea -- conditional or
unconditional -- to support the judgment of conviction, that
judgment must be vacated” and the case remanded for further
proceedings. Id. On remand, Izac must decide whether to enter
another guilty plea or proceed to trial.
We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issue
has been authoritatively decided, and argument would not aid the
decisional process. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
VACATED AND REMANDED
3