Case Information

David Marrero v. Warden, LSCI Butner

No. 5:17-hc-02020-BO

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

267

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Marrero, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marrero v. Warden, LSCI Butner, No. 5:17-hc-02020-BO (E.D.N.C. May 23, 2017). 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

Case Information

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua Brandon MAJOR, a/k/a Joshua Brandon Tart, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7279

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: July 26, 2017

Submitted: July 11, 2017

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Joshua Brandon Major, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Rita Pascucci, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Brandon Major appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, in which he contended that the district court erred in finding that his prior Virginia burglary convictions constituted violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012). We granted a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether, in light of Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2017), Virginia statutory burglary is a violent felony for ACCA purposes; and (2) whether Major's appeal is moot in light of his release from prison during the pendency of this appeal. After further briefing and consideration, we conclude that the district court erroneously determined that Major's burglary convictions were violent felonies supporting his armed career criminal classification. Although precedent at the time the district court sentenced Major supported this classification, intervening decisions by the Supreme Court and this Court have altered the landscape. We also find that Major's release from prison does not render moot his appeal as he remains on supervised release, and the district court may, in its discretion, alter any aspect of a defendant's otherwise statutorily mandated sentence, including supervised release terms. See United States v. Doe, 810 F.3d 132, 143 (3d Cir. 2015).

Thus, we vacate the district court's denial of Major's § 2255 motion and remand for further consideration. We deny Major's request that we terminate the unserved portion of his supervised release term, without prejudice to his ability to seek relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Case Information

Barry CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer S. KHAN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-2516

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: July 27, 2017

Submitted: June 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Donald F. Rosendorf, LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. ROSENDORF, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia B. Judkins, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barry Carter appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We affirm the decision of the district court for the reasons stated with respect to the existence of probable cause to arrest Carter for the equipment violation and with respect to its holding that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on Carter's use of force claim due to the absence of clearly established law. Carter v. Kahn, No. 1:15-cv-00572-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2015). We express no opinion on the district court's finding with respect to the existence of probable cause to arrest Carter for obstruction of justice or with respect to the conclusion that the use of force was objectively reasonable. 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