* The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption as set-forth above. 08-5958-cr (L) United States v. Dewar & King (Amended)



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN**
**ELECTRONIC DATABASE (**  **WITH THE NOTATION “**  **SUMMARY ORDER ”).**  **A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST** 
**SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .** 
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 26 th** **day of April, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,** 8 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 Appellee-Cross-Appellant
, 14 08-5958-cr; 15 -v.- 08-6222-cr; 16 09-1338-cr; 17 CHARLES ERNEST DEWAR, 10-0403-cr 18 Defendant
, 19 20 DONAHUE DEWAR and SHARON KING, 21 Defendants-Appellants-Cross 22 Appellees

. * 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 24 25 **FOR APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE DEWAR:** Clinton Calhoun, III, 26 Briccetti, Calhoun & 27 Lawrence, LLP, White 28 Plains, New York. 292 1 **FOR APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE KING:** Jeremy Gutman, New 2 York, New York. 3 4 **FOR APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT:** Brent S. Wible, 5 Assistant United States 6 Attorney, forPreet 7 Bharara, United States 8 Attorney for the 9 Southern District of 10 New York, New York, New 11 York. 12 13 On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. 14 15 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 16 **AND DECREED**that the judgments of the district court be 17
**AFFIRMED IN PART**  , **VACATED IN PART** , and **REMANDED**

. 18 19 Defendants-appellants-cross-appellees Donahue Dewar and 20 Sharon King were convicted, after a jury trial in the United 21 States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 22 of conspiring to distribute more than five kilograms of 23 cocaine and a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 24 U.S.C. § 846; distribution and possession with intent to 25 distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 26 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B); distribution and 27 possession with intent to distribute a quantity of 28 marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), 29 841(b)(1)(D); and using and carrying a firearm during and in 30 relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 31 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 2. Dewar was also convicted of 32 an additional count of distribution and possession with 33 intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in 34 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). 35 36 Dewar and King appealed from their judgments of 37 conviction; the government cross-appealed from the district 38 court’s decision to impose concurrent sentences for the 39 convictions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This Court 40 affirmed the judgments of conviction and the sentences. 41 United States v. Dewar , 375 F. App’x 90 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 42 2010) (unpublished summary order). The Supreme Court 43 granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the 44 matter to this Court for further consideration in light of 451The Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing in this case on April 18, 2011.

3 Abbott v. United States , 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010). 1We assume 1 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 2 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 3 4 For the reasons stated in our earlier order, Dewar , 375 5 F. App’x at 92-94, we affirm the convictions of Dewar and 6 King. 7 8 This Court’s decisions in United States v. Whitley , 529 9 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008) and United States v. Williams , 558 10 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2009), “construing the ‘except’ clause of 11 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), [have been] abrogated by the 12 Supreme Court’s decision in Abbott [.]” United States v. 13 Tejada , 631 F.3d 614, 619 (2d Cir. 2011). We vacate and 14 remand the sentences imposed on Dewar and King for the 15 limited purpose of allowing the district court to impose 16 sentences in accord with the Supreme Court’s decision in 17 Abbott and this Court’s decision in Tejada

. 18 19 The convictions are **AFFIRMED;** the sentences are **VACATED** 20 and the matter is **REMANDED**to allow the district court to 21 resentence Dewar and King in light of Abbott v. United 22 States , 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010) and United States v. Tejada
, 23 631 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 2011). 24 25 26 FOR THE COURT: 27 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 28 29