US v. Shakoor Stevenson, No. 10-5247 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAKOOR STEVENSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00036-JFM-1; 1:10-cr-00247-JFM-1) Submitted: November 23, 2011 Decided: December 28, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc L. Resnick, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shakoor Stevenson pled guilty to distribution of and possession with the intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). He reserved the right to appeal any finding that he is a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 4B1.1 (2009). The career offender imprisonment. district and court imposed determined a that sentence Stevenson of 136 was months a of Stevenson appeals his sentence, arguing that the court erred in classifying him as a career offender. The district court s conclusion that Stevenson was a career offender was grounded in its determination that Stevenson s prior conviction for the Maryland common law offense of resisting arrest is a crime of violence under USSG § 4B1.1. Stevenson s challenge to this conclusion is squarely foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Jenkins, 631 F.3d 680 (4th Cir. 2011). Because a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel, see United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir. 2010), Jenkins requires rejection of Stevenson s sentence. legal appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Stevenson s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
