Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06369/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
George William Whitmire
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6369

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

GEORGE WILLIAM WHITMIRE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:04-cr-00483-TLW-1; 4:15-cv-03406-TLW)

Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: September 27, 2016

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

Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George William Whitmire, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; 

Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6369 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/27/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

George William Whitmire seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We 

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and 

find that the court misapplied the concurrent sentence doctrine 

because it is not reasonably certain from the record that 

adverse collateral consequences will not flow from Whitmire’s 

designation as an armed career criminal. See Benton v. 

Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 787-91 (1969); United States v. Hill, 

859 F.2d 325, 326 (4th Cir. 1988) (discussing doctrine); United 

States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1981) (stating 

that a court must be able to “foresee with reasonable certainty 

that no adverse collateral consequences will redound to the 

defendant”).

Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, 

vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further 

proceedings. 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

Appeal: 16-6369 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 2