US v. Michael Olds, No. 10-4338 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 15, 2011.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS, Defendant - Appellant. On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 10-10612) Submitted: January 26, 2012 Decided: February 9, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: After finding that Michael Dennis Olds had violated the terms of his supervised release, the district court revoked release and sentenced him to thirty months in prison- significantly above Olds recommended Guidelines range of fiveeleven months. that the In imposing sentence, the district court stated variant sentence was warranted by Olds need for intensive drug therapy and the need to protect society from his ongoing drug use. Olds appealed, arguing that his sentence was plainly unreasonable. We affirmed. subsequently vacated the However, judgment the and Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). United States v. Olds, 420 Fed. App x 260 (4th Cir.), vacated, 132 S. Ct. 452 (2011). In Tapia, the Supreme Court held that sentencing courts are precluded from imposing or lengthening rehabilitation. a prison term to promote an offender s Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2391. The district court did not have the benefit of Tapia when it determined Olds sentence. To give the district court an opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Tapia, we conclude that resentencing is necessary. Accordingly, the sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not adequately aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
