Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold FORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-27
Citations: 447 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 10-4176
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Harold FORD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Harold FORD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-4176.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 15, 2011.
Decided: Sept. 27, 2011.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Reversed and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Ford was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). The district court sentenced Ford to seventy-eight months' imprisonment. Ford appealed, arguing that his prior conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and, thus, could not serve as a predicate conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Ford has moved to vacate his conviction and remand the case to the district court. In light of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc), we reverse.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm. Ford's prior North Carolina state conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1340.17(c)-(d) (2009) (setting out minimum and maximum sentences applicable under North Carolina's structured sentencing scheme). When Ford raised this argument in the district court, it was foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir.2005). Subsequently, however, we overruled Harp with our en banc decision in Simmons, in which we sustained a similar argument in favor of the defendant. In view of our holding in Simmons, we reverse Ford's conviction, deny as moot the motion to vacate, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
We direct the clerk to issue the mandate forthwith. 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.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.