US v. Jeremy Lemmond, No. 10-5243 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JEREMY SCOTT LEMMOND, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00192-RJC-1) Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Laura L. Ferris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeremy Scott Lemmond appeals his 188-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2006). On appeal, Lemmond argues that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 4B1.1 convictions on (2010) which Carolina state violation of because that classification convictions N.C. neither for Gen. larceny Stat. of was from the two prior based two North the person, § 14-72(b)(1) in (2009) were punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. We vacate and remand for resentencing. A defendant is properly designated a career offender if: (1) he committed was the at least instant eighteen offense; (2) years the old at instant the time offense is he a felony crime of violence or controlled substance offense; and (3) he has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence USSG § 4B1.1(a). violence or punishable a controlled substance offense. An offense does not qualify as a crime of a by or controlled imprisonment substance for a offense term unless exceeding one it is year. USSG § 4B1.2(a). Lemmond argues that his prior crimes punishable by no more than one year of imprisonment. 2 were each See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17(c)-(d) and maximum sentences sentencing scheme). district States court, v. applicable (setting under forth North minimum Carolina s When Lemmond raised this argument in the it was Harp, Subsequently, (2009) 406 however, foreclosed F.3d we by 242, our decision in 246 Cir. Harp overruled (4th with our United 2005). en banc decision in United States v. Simmons, ___ F.3d ___, No. 08-4475, 2011 WL 3607266 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (en banc), in which the defendant raised Substances Act. court s similar argument under the Controlled In light of Simmons, we vacate the district judgment resentencing. * a and remand to the district 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. VACATED AND REMANDED * The Government does not dispute Lemmond s assertion that his prior North Carolina state convictions are Class H offenses. The record on appeal, however, does not disclose Lemmond s prior record level or whether the state sentencing court made findings of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. See Simmons, 2011 WL 3607266, at *5 (stating that, for prior North Carolina convictions where no aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, test is whether defendant could receive more than one year in prison based upon his offense class and prior record level). We express no opinion as to whether Lemmond s prior state convictions qualify as career offender predicates and leave this determination to the district court on remand. 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.
