UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4697
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES DAVID RAKEEM HARTSFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00312-FL-1)
Submitted: November 8, 2011 Decided: November 15, 2011
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James David Rakeem Hartsfield entered a conditional
guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Hartsfield reserved his
right to appeal the issue whether his prior state conviction,
for possession of cocaine in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-
95(a)(3) (2009), was punishable by more than one year of
imprisonment and therefore a predicate felony for the § 922(g)
conviction. On consideration of Hartsfield’s unopposed motion
to vacate his federal conviction, we reverse.
The judgment for the state court conviction, included
in the record below in support of Hartsfield’s motion to dismiss
the indictment, reveals that Hartsfield faced a maximum possible
sentence of ten months for his cocaine conviction under North
Carolina law. At the time that the district court accepted
Hartsfield’s guilty plea, our decision in United States v. Harp,
406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005), dictated that a court, when
determining whether a prior conviction could be considered as a
felony, should “consider the maximum aggravated sentence that
could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst
possible criminal history.” Harp has since been overturned by
our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.
2011) (en banc). Simmons holds that a North Carolina offense
may not be classified as a felony based upon the maximum
2
aggravated sentence that could be imposed upon a repeat offender
if the defendant before the court was not actually eligible for
such a sentence. Id. at 241-46. Because Hartsfield was not
subject to a sentence exceeding one year, his state conviction
was not a felony conviction, and therefore, the conduct that
formed the basis for his federal conviction, possessing a
firearm, did not violate § 922(g).
Accordingly, we reverse Hartsfield’s conviction and
remand for further proceedings. ∗ We deny Hartsfield’s motion to
vacate as moot. The clerk is directed 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
∗
We of course do not fault the district court for its
reliance upon, and application of, unambiguous circuit authority
at the time of Hartsfield’s conviction.
3