Court Opinion

ID: 1001576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:57:51.540087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:19.642234
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 99-4774

DEVIN TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CR-98-454)

Submitted: May 11, 2000

Decided: May 19, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thanos Kanellakos, THANOS KANELLAKOS, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Devin Taylor appeals his 262-month sentence based upon a guilty
plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
heroin in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999). Taylor con-
tends that the sentencing court erred in finding he was a career
offender based upon his prior state court conviction for escape from
custody. Taylor argues this prior state conviction was not a "crime of
violence" under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 (1998).

Because Taylor's sentence fell within the two overlapping, dis-
puted guidelines ranges and because the court expressly announced
the sentence it imposed would have been the same under either guide-
lines range, review of the issue presented by Taylor is unnecessary.
See United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 432-33 (4th Cir. 1989)
(quoting United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 931 (2d Cir.
1988)).

Accordingly, we affirm Taylor's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2