Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04825/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04825-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glen Everric McRae
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4825

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GLEN EVERRIC MCRAE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:12-cr-00651-RWT-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin J. McCants, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. 

Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Adam K. Ake, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Jennifer L. Wine, Special Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4825 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Glen Everric McRae pled guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(2012), and was sentenced 41 months’ imprisonment. McRae 

appeals, arguing that the district court erred by failing to 

recommend that the Bureau of Prisons credit a period of state 

incarceration toward his federal sentence. “Because [such]

recommendations are not binding on the Bureau of Prisons, they 

are neither appealable as ‘final decisions’ under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 nor as a ‘final sentence’ under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.” 

United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 165 (2d Cir. 2003); accord

United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(collecting cases and noting that “[e]very other circuit that 

has confronted this issue has reached a similar conclusion”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

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. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-4825 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/09/2015 Pg: 2 of 2