Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0496-01.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. Dequantey Maurice WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-6697
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 31, 2016
    Decided: September 8, 2016
    Dequantey Maurice Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dequantey Maurice Williams noted this appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We granted a certifícate of appeal-ability on the issue of whether Williams was properly sentenced as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012).

After the district court entered its order, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b) (2012), is unconstitutionally vague. Additionally, we held that North Carolina common law robbery “does not qualify categorically as a ‘violent felony5 under [§ 924(e)(2)(B)].” United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793, 804 (4th Cir. 2016). Based on Johnson and Gardner, the Government has conceded that Williams would not be subject to the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under § 924(e) if he were sentenced today. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying Williams’ § 2255 motion and remand this case for further proceedings. 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