US v. James Hartsfield, No. 11-4697 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4697 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DAVID RAKEEM HARTSFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00312-FL-1) Submitted: November 8, 2011 Decided: November 15, 2011 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James David Rakeem Hartsfield entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Hartsfield reserved his right to appeal the issue whether his prior state conviction, for possession of cocaine in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9095(a)(3) (2009), was punishable by more than one year of imprisonment and therefore a predicate felony for the § 922(g) conviction. On consideration of Hartsfield s unopposed motion to vacate his federal conviction, we reverse. The judgment for the state court conviction, included in the record below in support of Hartsfield s motion to dismiss the indictment, reveals that Hartsfield faced a maximum possible sentence of ten months for his cocaine conviction under North Carolina law. At the time that the district court accepted Hartsfield s guilty plea, our decision in United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005), dictated that a court, when determining whether a prior conviction could be considered as a felony, should consider the maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible criminal history. Harp has since been overturned by our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). may not be Simmons holds that a North Carolina offense classified as a felony 2 based upon the maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed upon a repeat offender if the defendant before the court was not actually eligible for such a sentence. Id. at 241-46. Because Hartsfield was not subject to a sentence exceeding one year, his state conviction was not a felony conviction, and therefore, the conduct that formed the basis for his federal conviction, possessing a firearm, did not violate § 922(g). Accordingly, we reverse remand for further proceedings. vacate as moot. forthwith. legal the conviction and We deny Hartsfield s motion to The clerk is directed to issue the mandate We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions before Hartsfield s court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. REVERSED AND REMANDED We of course do not fault the district court for its reliance upon, and application of, unambiguous circuit authority at the time of Hartsfield s conviction. 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.
