UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5175
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM JOSEPH INMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00119-FL-1)
Submitted: October 3, 2011 Decided: November 2, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
and Writing Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Joseph Inman challenges his conviction after a
jury trial for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and his designation
as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)
(2006). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Inman’s
conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing.
Inman asserts that the district court erred by
refusing to give his proposed jury instruction on the
affirmative defense of justification. “A defendant is entitled
to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there
exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his
favor.” United States v. Ricks, 573 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir.
2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). This
court also has recognized that “[i]f . . . an affirmative
defense consists of several elements and testimony supporting
one element is insufficient to sustain it even if believed, the
trial court and jury need not be burdened with testimony
supporting other elements of the defense.” United States v.
Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 621 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Our de novo review of the record convinces us
that the district court correctly concluded the evidence did not
warrant an instruction on the justification defense. See United
States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 330 (4th Cir. 1989) (listing
2
elements of the justification defense); see also Ricks, 573 F.3d
at 200 (stating standard of review).
Inman also argues, as he did in the district court,
that his prior state felony convictions were not punishable
under North Carolina law by a term of imprisonment exceeding one
year. He therefore asserts that the district court improperly
designated him as an armed career criminal. We have reviewed
the record in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), * and agree with
Inman.
Accordingly, we affirm Inman’s conviction, vacate
Inman’s sentence, and remand to the district court for
resentencing. 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
*
The district court did not have the benefit of our
decision in Simmons when it sentenced Inman.
3