Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04057/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Davie
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADRIAN DAVIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00051-1)

Submitted: April 10, 2008 Decided: May 22, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,

Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public

Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa Grimes

Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4057 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/22/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*

We offer no criticism of the district court which properly

applied the relevant law at the time of sentencing. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Davie pled guilty to possession with intent to

distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to fifty-seven months of

imprisonment. The district court rejected Davie’s request for a

variance sentence based on the sentencing disparity between crack

and powder cocaine under the Sentencing Guidelines, relying on

then-binding precedent. See United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625,

632-34 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that 100:1 ratio cannot be the

basis of a variance), vacated, 128 S. Ct. 853 (2008). Because Eura

was vacated by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kimbrough v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), we grant the parties’ joint motion

to remand in light of that opinion. Accordingly we vacate and

remand for resentencing in light of Kimbrough.* 

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: 08-4057 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/22/2008 Pg: 2 of 2