US v. Christopher Goins, Jr., No. 21-4686 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-4686 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER HAROLD GOINS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:10-cr-00107-FL-1) Submitted: May 10, 2022 Decided: May 17, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Harold Goins, Jr., appeals his 240-month sentence, arguing that the district court erroneously sentenced him as an armed career criminal, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), because one of his predicates is invalid. However, as Goins correctly concedes, his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Dodge, 963 F.3d 379, 381-85 (4th Cir. 2020), which held that the predicate offense at issue—North Carolina breaking and entering, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-54(a)—categorically qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. And, as Goins further acknowledges, this panel is not at liberty to overrule Dodge. See United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.