Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Jerrod MURRAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-22
Citations: 696 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 16-4297
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Jerrod MURRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Jerrod MURRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4297
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 15, 2017
Decided: August 22, 2017
Walter C. Holton, Jr., HOLTON LAW FIRM, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Jerrod Murray pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). The district court concluded that either of Murray's prior North Carolina convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon or possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction warranted application of a base offense level of 20 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015). Murray appeals the 42-month sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that neither prior crime qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
"[W]e review de novo whether a defendant's prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the career offender guideline." United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 327-28 (4th Cir. 2017). Murray was indicted for, and pled guilty to, possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 (2015). We have previously held that such a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the residual clause of the Guidelines. United States v. Hood, 628 F.3d 669, 672-73 (4th Cir, 2010). Although Murray argues that the residual clause is void for vagueness and, thus, that possession of a sawed-off shotgun no longer constitutes a crime of violence, the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), forecloses his argument.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.
AFFIRMED
We need not address Murray's arguments regarding his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery.