Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Lavour TWITTY, Defendant-Appellant.
Steven Lavour Twitty petitions this court for panel and en banc rehearing of our decision affirming the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. See United States v. Twitty, 683 Fed.Appx. 194 (4th Cir. 2017). Our opinion applied Beckles v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), to Twitty's case without analyzing the appropriateness of Beckles’ application, given that the district court imposed Twitty's sentence pursuant to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines procedures in existence prior to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Twitty, 683 Fed.Appx. at 194-95. Accordingly, we grant the petition for panel rehearing but deny the petition for rehearing en banc.
We previously granted a certificate of appealability in this appeal on the issues of whether the district court improperly designated Twitty as a career offender, whether such a claim was cognizable on collateral review, and whether Twitty suffered any prejudice from the alleged error. The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion, ruling that Twitty could not show prejudice because, given his sentencing enhancements, his Guidelines range would be the same, even absent his career offender status. However, the district court did not consider the impact of the fact that Twitty's drug amount and firearm enhancements were applied pursuant to the mandatory Guidelines procedures.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand for reconsideration of Twitty's motion in light of the changing legal landscape regarding numerous issues in this case. We deny Twitty's motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-7744
Decided: May 07, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)