UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4176
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HAROLD FORD,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00093-BR-1)
Submitted: September 15, 2011 Decided: September 27, 2011
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Ford was convicted of possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924
(2006). The district court sentenced Ford to seventy-eight
months’ imprisonment. Ford appealed, arguing that his prior
conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year and, thus, could not serve as a predicate
conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Ford has moved to
vacate his conviction and remand the case to the district court.
In light of United States v. Simmons, ___ F.3d ___, No. 08–4475,
2011 WL 3607266 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (en banc), we reverse.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for any
person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year to possess a firearm. Ford’s prior
North Carolina state conviction was not punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 15A-1340.17(c)-(d) (2009) (setting out minimum and maximum
sentences applicable under North Carolina’s structured
sentencing scheme). When Ford raised this argument in the
district court, it was foreclosed by our decision in United
States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005).
Subsequently, however, we overruled Harp with our en banc
decision in Simmons, in which we sustained a similar argument in
favor of the defendant. In view of our holding in Simmons, we
2
reverse Ford’s conviction, deny as moot the motion to vacate,
and remand the case to the district court for further
proceedings.
We direct the clerk to issue the mandate forthwith.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
3