Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George William WHITMIRE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-27
Citations: 669 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 16-6369
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George William WHITMIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George William WHITMIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6369
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 20, 2016
Decided: September 27, 2016
George William Whitmire, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George William Whitmire seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that the court misapplied the concurrent sentence doctrine because it is not reasonably certain from the record that adverse collateral consequences will not flow from Whit-mire's designation as an armed career criminal. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 787-91, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); United States v. Hill, 859 F.2d 325, 326 (4th Cir. 1988) (discussing doctrine); United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1981) (stating that a court must be able to "foresee with reasonable certainty that no adverse collateral consequences will redound to the defendant").
Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED