Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Marcus LLOYD, III, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Marcus Lloyd, III, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-24
Citations: 9 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: Nos. 00-4761, 00-4792
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Marcus LLOYD, III, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Marcus Lloyd, III, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 9
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Marcus LLOYD, III, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Marcus Lloyd, III, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 00-4761, 00-4792.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2001.
Decided May 24, 2001.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, SC, for appellant.
Scott N. Schools, United States Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
James Marcus Lloyd, III, pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine. He appeals the district court's finding under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Dl.l(b)(l) (1998), that he possessed a handgun in connection with a drug offense. The Government cross-appeals from the district court's decision that the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), prohibited the two-level enhancement under USSG § 201.1(b)(1). We vacate the judgment of conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The district court's factual finding that Lloyd possessed a handgun in connection with a drug offense was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Apple, 915 F.2d 899, 913-14 (4th Cir.1990). However, we find that the court erred as a matter of law by finding that Apprendi prohibited the two-level enhancement. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192,199-201 (4th Cir.2000).
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. We also deny Lloyd's petition for en banc hearing. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED.