Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0267-01.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. Joshua Brandon MAJOR, a/k/a Joshua Brandon Tart, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7279
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 11, 2017
    Decided: July 26, 2017
    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.
    Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 pen-dency 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