US v. Michael Eason, No. 08-4713 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4713 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL JOSEPH EASON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-00262-FL-1) Submitted: May 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, July 1, 2009 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter H. Paramore, III, WALTER H. PARAMORE, III, P.C., Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Joseph Eason appeals the 120-month departure sentence imposed by the district court following his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). Eason asserts that the district court erred by imposing a departure sentence without first affording him adequate notice that it planned to depart upward pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 4A1.3, p.s. Rule 32(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the sentencing court give the parties reasonable notice that identified it as is a considering possible a basis departure for on departure a ground either in presentence report or in a party s prehearing submission. R. Crim. written P. 32(h). its comments explaining order In the upward at sentencing departure, the not the Fed. and its district court relied on USSG § 5K2.21, p.s., as well as § 4A1.3, p.s. The presentence report specifically identified USSG § 5K2.21 as a possible ground for upward departure. We are satisfied that Eason district § 4A1.3 was not for prejudiced principles because echoed § 5K2.21 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). in the its analysis court under cited USSG Accordingly, we conclude that any error by the district court in failing to give such notice 2 was harmless. Eason lodges no further claim of error with respect to his sentence. We court. legal before therefore affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.