US v. Ricardo Williams, Jr., No. 15-4522 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4522 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. RICARDO TYRONE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellee. No. 15-4523 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. QUINCY JAMEL HARGETT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00023-BO-1; 4:15-cr-00023-BO-2) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and MOTZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, November 3, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Chief Appellate Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Geoffrey Ryan Willis, WILLIS JOHNSON & NELSON, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury indicted Ricardo Tyrone Williams, Jr. and Quincy Jamel Hargett each for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Williams and Hargett moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that their prior convictions did not qualify as felonies because they were not punishable by a term exceeding one year. granted the motions and dismissed The district court the indictment. The Government appealed, and we previously granted the Government’s motion to place these appeals in abeyance for our decision in United States v. Barlow, 811 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2041 (2016). When Government moved for summary reversal. that motion, and again placed the Barlow issued, the We deferred ruling on appeals in abeyance disposition of the petition for certiorari in Barlow. for When that petition was denied, the parties fully briefed the issues. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand. We review a district court's order dismissing an indictment de novo. 2003). United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589, 591 (4th Cir. Under imprisonment North for Carolina Hargett's law, prior the presumptive offense of range possession of of a stolen firearm was 6 to 17 months of imprisonment, and he was sentenced to that range. Williams was also sentenced to the presumptive range of 8 to 19 months of imprisonment for his 3 prior conviction for possession with intent to sell marijuana. Under North Carolina’s Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011, however, both Hargett and Williams were required to be released onto post-release supervision nine months before the expiration of the their maximum sentences. The district court determined that because Hargett and Williams had to be released prior to serving 12 months of incarceration, those offenses were not punishable by terms exceeding 1 year of imprisonment. In Barlow, however, we held that the term of post-release supervision is part of the term of imprisonment. 137-40. 811 F.3d at Therefore, we conclude that based on our decision in Barlow, the district court erred in determining that Hargett and Williams’ prior convictions were not predicate offenses for purposes of § 922(g)(1). Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion for summary reversal, vacate the district court's orders, and remand with instructions to reinstate the indictment. 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 4
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.
