US v. William Inman, No. 09-5175 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM JOSEPH INMAN, Defendant -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 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. MayParker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (2006). career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Inman s conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. Inman refusing to asserts give that his the district proposed jury affirmative defense of justification. court erred instruction by on the 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 United States v. Ricks, 573 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. favor. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). court also has recognized that [i]f . . . an This 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 supporting other elements of the defense. Sarno, 24 F.3d marks omitted). 618, 621 (4th Cir. 1994) with testimony United States v. (internal quotation 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, Inman s sentence, resentencing. and we affirm remand Inman s to the conviction, district vacate court for 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 decision in Simmons when it sentenced Inman. 3 benefit of our
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.
