Court Opinion

ID: 1001858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:02:02.357503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:20.613973
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 97-4840

ALVIN LOMAX BURRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge.
(CR-96-427-MJG)

Submitted: June 6, 2000

Decided: June 22, 2000

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Fred Warren Bennett, BENNETT & NATHANS, L.L.P., Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Lynn A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
Martin J. Clarke, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Alvin Lomax Burris appeals his sentence for one count of being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)
(West 1976 & Supp. 2000). Burris claims that the district court erred
by not back-dating the starting date of the sentence so that it would
run concurrently with a previously-discharged state sentence. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.

Legal questions involving the application of the sentencing guide-
lines are reviewed de novo. See United States v. Mosley, 200 F.3d
218, 221 (4th Cir. 1999). "Section 5G1.3 of the Sentencing Guide-
lines deals with the imposition of a sentence on a defendant who is
subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment ." Id. at 222 (empha-
sis added). Section 5G1.3 is only concerned with undischarged sen-
tences. See United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1027, 1040 (4th Cir.
1996). This proposition holds even if there is a delay in sentencing
that results in the prior sentence becoming completely discharged. See
id. Thus, the district court properly denied Burris' request to back-
date the starting date of his federal sentence so that it could run con-
currently to his then discharged state sentence.

We affirm the conviction and 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
in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*We decline to dismiss the appeal as moot because there is not conclu-
sive evidence in the materials before the court to establish that the appeal
is in fact moot.

                    2