Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Trenton Neil HENRY, a/k/a Christopher Michael Becton, a/k/a Mark John Johnson, a/k/a Kiseem Phillips, a/k/a Deshaun Christopher Sumlin, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-14
Citations: 11 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 00-4830
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Trenton Neil HENRY, a/k/a Christopher Michael Becton, a/k/a Mark John Johnson, a/k/a Kiseem Phillips, a/k/a Deshaun Christopher Sumlin, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 350–351

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Trenton Neil HENRY, a/k/a Christopher Michael Becton, a/k/a Mark John Johnson, a/k/a Kiseem Phillips, a/k/a Deshaun Christopher Sumlin, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4830.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2001.
Decided June 14, 2001.
James R. Cromwell, Vogel & Cromwell, Roanoke, VA, for appellant. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
On appeal, Trenton Neil Henry challenges the district court's application of this court's decision in United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1036 (4th Cir.1996), in denying him a downward departure to credit him for time served in a fully discharged prison term for a related offense. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Where a defendant appeals a refusal to grant a downward departure based on the legal conclusion that such a departure is impermissible, this court may review a district court's legal interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 214, 230 (4th Cir.1998). However, both the district courts of this circuit and subsequent panels of this court are obliged to follow a decision of this court until it has been overruled by the Supreme Court or a decision by this court en banc. See Chisolm v. TranSouth Financial Corp., 95 F.3d 331, 337 n. 7 (4th Cir.1996); Doe v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 529 F.2d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1975). Hence, because the district court properly followed relevant precedent of this circuit, we find no grounds for reversal.
Accordingly, we deny the Government's motion to dismiss and affirm Henry's conviction. No member of this court requested that a poll be taken with respect to Henry's Petition For Hearing En Banc. Accordingly, we deny that petition as well. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.