UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4360
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS JEROME NEAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00359-TDS-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Diana L. Stavroulakis, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Jerome Neal pled guilty to distributing 27.8
grams of cocaine base “crack” in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (2006), and was sentenced to 120 months
of imprisonment. On appeal, Neal’s sole issue is that he should
have been sentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
(“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111–220. Currently pending before this
court is Neal’s unopposed motion to remand this case to the
district court to allow Neal to be resentenced in accordance
with the FSA.
Based on our consideration of the materials submitted
with this motion, we grant the motion to remand, vacate the
sentence, and remand this case to the district court to permit
resentencing. By this disposition, however, we indicate no view
as to whether the FSA is retroactively applicable to a defendant
like Neal whose offenses were committed prior to August 3, 2010,
the effective date of the Act, but who was sentenced after that
date, leaving that determination in the first instance to the
district court. ∗ Because Neal does not contest his conviction on
appeal, we affirm his conviction.
∗
See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 n.5 (4th
Cir. 2011) (reserving judgment on the question “whether the FSA
could be found to apply to defendants whose offenses were
committed before August 3, 2010, but who have not yet been
sentenced”).
2
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
3