US v. Maurice Melvin, No. 13-4857 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 1, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4857 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAURICE LASHAWN MELVIN, a/k/a Maurice Leshawn Melvin, Defendant - Appellant. On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 14-6510) Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 26, 2015 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Lashawn Melvin pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). He was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 159 months in prison. On appeal, Melvin argued that the sentencing court erred in determining that his two prior North Carolina convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon constituted predicate offenses under the ACCA. We rejected the argument because it was foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. White, 571 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding North Carolina conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon constitutes a predicate violent felony affirmed Melvin’s sentence. under ACCA). Accordingly, we See United States v. Melvin, 577 F. App’x 179 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-4857). On June 30, 2015, the Supreme Court granted Melvin’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded to this court for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the ACCA—the final clause of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012)—is unconstitutionally vague. 135 S. Ct. at 2557 (“[T]he indeterminacy of the wide- ranging inquiry required by the residual clause both denies fair 2 notice to judges. defendants Increasing and a invites arbitrary defendant’s sentence enforcement under the by clause denies due process of law.”). Melvin now argues, and the Government concedes, that under Johnson Melvin’s conspiracy convictions no longer support his ACCA sentence. three predicate criminal. motion to Without these convictions, Melvin does not have offenses Accordingly, vacate the to we qualify grant judgment district court for resentencing. him the and as an armed Government’s remand the career unopposed case to the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
