Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0277-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Leroy DARITY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Leroy Darity, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 00-4883, 01-4018.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 28, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 13, 2001.
    
      Scott H. Gsell, Law Offices of Scott Gsell, Charlotte, NC, for appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas E. Booth, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

These appeals arise from the district court’s orders granting partial relief on Michael Darity’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion and denying the Government’s motion to reconsider. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in No. 00-4883 and, in No. 01M018, we reverse the order denying the Government’s motion for reconsideration and remand for reimposition of Darity’s original sentence.

Darity was convicted in 1997 of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (West 1999), and sentenced to 384 months imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Darity, No. 98-4090, 181 F.3d 92, 1999 WL 397722 (4th Cir. June 17, 1999) (unpublished), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1128, 120 S.Ct. 962, 145 L.Ed.2d 834 (2000).

Darity filed a § 2255 motion in the district court challenging his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Darity also claimed that he was improperly sentenced as a leader or organizer and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to stipulate to the facts surrounding his arrest. The district court granted Darity’s § 2255 motion in part, reasoning that Apprendi applied retroactively, and reduced Darity’s sentence to 240 months imprisonment. The court denied relief as to Darity’s other claims. The Government filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that Apprendi should not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The district court denied the motion. Darity and the Government appeal.

In No. 00M883, our review of the record and the district court’s opinion to the extent it denied relief on Darity’s claims discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Darity, No. CR-95-132 (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 25, 2001; entered Oct. 30, 2000). In light of our disposition in No. 01-4018, we deny as moot the Government’s motion for summary reversal of the district court’s order to the extent that it granted partial relief.

In No. 01M018, the Government appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion to reconsider the granting of relief on Darity’s motion with respect to his claim under Apprendi In United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 573, - L.Ed.2d -, (2001) (No. 01-6715), we held that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Id. at 146. The district court’s order squarely conflicts with Sanders. We therefore reverse the district court’s order denying the Government’s motion for reconsideration and remand with instructions to reimpose Darity’s original 384-month sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
      
       Although we grant Darity’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief, we have reviewed his claims and find them to be without merit. See United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228 (4th Cir.2001) (holding that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is not unconstitutional in light of Apprendi).