Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04901/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04901-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Eugene Everhart
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY EUGENE EVERHART,

Defendant - Appellant.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

(S. Ct. No. 07-9376)

Submitted: July 24, 2008 Decided: August 13, 2008

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark P. Foster, Jr., NIXON, PARK, GRONQUIST & FOSTER, P.L.L.C.,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray,

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4901 Doc: 75 Filed: 08/13/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Ricky Eugene Everhart was found

guilty of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846 (West 1999 & Supp.

2008), and two counts of possession with intent to distribute fifty

grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.

Everhart appealed, and although we affirmed his convictions, we

remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Everhart, 166 F. App’x 61

(4th Cir. 2006) (No. 04-5124). 

On remand, Everhart argued, in relevant part, that the

district court should impose a variance sentence because the

Sentencing Guidelines’ 100-to-1 crack cocaine/powder cocaine ratio

created unwarranted sentencing disparity. Based upon thenauthoritative Circuit precedent, the district court rejected

Everhart’s request for a variance sentence and reimposed a 360-

month term of imprisonment. We affirmed the district court’s

order. See United States v. Everhart, 245 F. App’x 316 (4th Cir.

2007) (No. 06-4901), vacated, 128 S. Ct. 1750 (2008). Everhart

filed a petition for writ of certiorari from the United States

Supreme Court, which vacated his sentence and remanded his case to

this court for further consideration in light of Kimbrough v.

Appeal: 06-4901 Doc: 75 Filed: 08/13/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
*

On remand, Everhart will be resentenced under the revised

Guidelines for crack offenses that took effect on November 1, 2007.

- 3 -

United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), and Gall v. United States,

128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). 

In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court held that “it would not

be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when

sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity

yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve [18 U.S.C.A]

§ 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” Kimbrough, 128 S.

Ct. at 575. Kimbrough has thus abrogated United States v. Eura,

440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding sentencing court may not vary

from Guidelines range solely because of 100-to-1 ratio for

crack/powder offenses), vacated, 128 S. Ct. 853 (2008). The

district court did not have the benefit of Kimbrough when it

determined Everhart’s sentence. To give the district court the

opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Kimbrough, we

conclude that resentencing is necessary. 

We therefore vacate the sentence imposed by the district

court and remand for resentencing.* 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 06-4901 Doc: 75 Filed: 08/13/2008 Pg: 3 of 3