Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Charles GREEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-10
Citations: 404 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 10-4045
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Charles GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Charles GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-4045.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 5, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 10, 2010.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Charles Green appeals the sixty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of fifty grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, Green contends that the district court procedurally erred in sentencing him by failing to recognize its authority to reject the craek-to-powdercocaine sentencing disparity. The Government concurs. After carefully reviewing the record, we agree that the court procedurally erred, vacate Green's sentence, and remand for further proceedings in light of Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261, 129 S.Ct. 840, 843-44, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009) ("[District courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines."). We dispense with oral argument because the issues are adequately presented before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED.