UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4924
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DERRICK LORENZO HAMILTON, a/k/a Eric Lorenzo Johnson,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00143-RJC-1)
Submitted: September 23, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Rahwa
Gebre-Egziabher, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Lorenzo Hamilton appeals the eighteen-month
sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. On
appeal, Hamilton claims that the district court erroneously
determined that he had committed a Grade A supervised release
violation, exposing him to a sentencing range of 18-24 months.
We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Hamilton argues, as he did below, that he could have
been sentenced to no more than ten months in prison pursuant to
his North Carolina state conviction for possession with intent
to sell and deliver marijuana. We are unable to determine from
the record on appeal whether Hamilton’s position is correct.
If, as claimed, he was subject to only ten months in prison,
application of our recent decision in United States v. Simmons,
649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), would appear to compel
the conclusion that Hamilton committed a Grade C violation of
release. This, in turn, would result in a significantly reduced
range of imprisonment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 7B1.4 (2010).
We accordingly vacate and remand for resentencing. We
express no opinion as to whether Hamilton’s state conviction
qualifies as a Grade C supervised release violation and leave
this determination to the district court on remand. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process. The Clerk is
directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3