US v. Mario Holifield, No. 16-4018 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO ANTWAINE HOLIFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00009-JPJ-PMS-1) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, Debbie H. Stevens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beaver, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mario Antwaine Holifield appeals his 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to four controlled substance offenses. Holifield challenges his designation as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2014). The Government seeks to invoke Holifield’s appellate waiver if we conclude that Holifield’s prior manslaughter convictions remain career offender predicates. Holifield has two prior convictions for manslaughter, in violation of Alabama law. The Alabama manslaughter statute, Ala. Code § 13A-6-3, corresponds to the generic definition of manslaughter in USSG § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1. United Peterson, 629 F.3d 432, 436–37 (4th Cir. 2011). argument that his prior manslaughter States v. Holifield’s convictions are not predicate crimes is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent holding that the Sentencing Guidelines “are not vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.” subject to Beckles v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781, at *3 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017). Holifield does not dispute that his appellate waiver was knowing and voluntary, and his sentencing challenge falls squarely within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
