Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-18-07139/USCOURTS-ca4-18-07139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos McClammy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS MCCLAMMY, a/k/a Carlos T. McClammy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00004-HEH-DJN-1; 3:15-

cv-00277-HEH-DJN)

Submitted: March 16, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary K. Martin, MARY K. MARTIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Hopewell, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Erik 

Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7139 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/16/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos McClammy appeals the district court’s order denying as futile his motions 

to amend and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. We granted a 

certificate of appealability on the issue of whether, in light of United States v. Davis, 139 

S. Ct. 2319 (2019), the district court erred in denying the motions to amend by determining 

that McClammy’s challenge to his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2018) conviction in Count 4 was 

untimely. The Government now elects to waive its timeliness challenge to McClammy’s 

claim but suggests that we can affirm on the alternative ground that amendment would be 

futile because McClammy’s vagueness challenge to Count 4 is procedurally defaulted. 

McClammy disputes that his claim is futile and contends that remand to the district court 

is necessary for development of the record.

“[M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view,” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 

F.3d 174, 203 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), we vacate the district 

court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the ultimate 

resolution of McClammy’s Davis claims. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7139 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/16/2020 Pg: 2 of 2