Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Thomas Neal, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Thomas Jerome Neal's appeal of his sentence for distributing cocaine base. The court granted Neal's unopposed motion to remand his case to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced sentences for certain cocaine offenses. However, the court did not make a determination on whether the Fair Sentencing Act could be applied retroactively to Neal, whose offense was committed before the Act but sentenced after. The court affirmed Neal's conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Thomas Neal, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Thomas Jerome Neal's appeal of his sentence for distributing cocaine base. The court granted Neal's unopposed motion to remand his case to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced sentences for certain cocaine offenses. However, the court did not make a determination on whether the Fair Sentencing Act could be applied retroactively to Neal, whose offense was committed before the Act but sentenced after. The court affirmed Neal's conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-10-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-4360

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Thomas Jerome Neal's appeal of his sentence for distributing cocaine base. The court granted Neal's unopposed motion to remand his case to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced sentences for certain cocaine offenses. However, the court did not make a determination on whether the Fair Sentencing Act could be applied retroactively to Neal, whose offense was committed before the Act but sentenced after. The court affirmed Neal's conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    9 views3 pages

    United States v. Thomas Neal, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Thomas Jerome Neal's appeal of his sentence for distributing cocaine base. The court granted Neal's unopposed motion to remand his case to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced sentences for certain cocaine offenses. However, the court did not make a determination on whether the Fair Sentencing Act could be applied retroactively to Neal, whose offense was committed before the Act but sentenced after. The court affirmed Neal's conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-4360

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    THOMAS JEROME NEAL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    Thomas David
    Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00359-TDS-1)

    Submitted:

    September 29, 2011

    Decided:

    October 4, 2011

    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished


    per curiam opinion.

    Diana L. Stavroulakis, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.


    Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Jerome Neal pled guilty to distributing 27.8
    grams

    of

    cocaine

    base

    crack

    in

    violation

    of

    21

    U.S.C.

    841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (2006), and was sentenced to 120 months


    of imprisonment.
    have

    been

    On appeal, Neals sole issue is that he should

    sentenced

    under

    the

    (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111220.

    Fair

    Sentencing

    Act

    of

    2010

    Currently pending before this

    court is Neals unopposed motion to remand this case to the


    district court to allow Neal to be resentenced in accordance
    with the FSA.
    Based on our consideration of the materials submitted
    with this motion, we grant the motion to remand, vacate the
    sentence, and remand this case to the district court to permit
    resentencing.

    By this disposition, however, we indicate no view

    as to whether the FSA is retroactively applicable to a defendant


    like Neal whose offenses were committed prior to August 3, 2010,
    the effective date of the Act, but who was sentenced after that
    date, leaving that determination in the first instance to the
    district court.

    Because Neal does not contest his conviction on

    appeal, we affirm his conviction.

    See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 n.5 (4th
    Cir. 2011) (reserving judgment on the question whether the FSA
    could be found to apply to defendants whose offenses were
    committed before August 3, 2010, but who have not yet been
    sentenced).

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED IN PART,
    VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

    You might also like