UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRAD VENSON WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(8:09-cr-01209-HFF-1)

Submitted: September 27, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished 

per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brad Venson Wilson pled guilty to possession with 

intent to distribute fifty or more grams of crack cocaine, 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006). Counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) averring that no 

meritorious issues for appeal exist, but asking the court to 

review whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11 in the plea colloquy and whether plain error occurred at 

sentencing. Wilson filed a supplemental pro se brief arguing 

that he should have been sentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act 

of 20101 (the FSA) and raising an additional claim of error at 

sentencing.2

 1 The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 increased the threshold 

quantities of cocaine base needed to trigger certain mandatory 

minimum sentences.

 Subsequently, the United States filed an unopposed 

motion to remand for resentencing, setting forth its new 

position that the FSA applies to all defendants who, like 

Wilson, were sentenced after its August 3, 2010 effective date.

2 We find to be without merit Wilson’s claim that the 

district court erred by including in his criminal history score 

convictions for which Wilson paid a fine rather than face 

imprisonment. The district court correctly calculated Wilson’s 

criminal history category.
3

We affirm Wilson’s conviction. Based on our 

consideration of the materials submitted, we grant the motion to 

remand, vacate the criminal judgment, and remand this case to 

the district court to permit resentencing. By this disposition, 

however, we indicate no view as to whether the FSA is 

retroactively applicable to a defendant like Wilson whose 

offenses were committed prior to the effective date of the Act, 

but who was sentenced after that date, leaving that 

determination in the first instance to the district court.

In accordance with Anders

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.

, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no other meritorious issues for 

appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Wilson, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Wilson requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Wilson.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED