U.S. v. PANNELL, 18-6084. (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20181101152
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2018
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Michael Scott Pannell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion challenging his sentence as an armed career criminal based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). We previously placed the appeal in abeyance for United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018). Pannell now moves to vacate his sentence and remand his case for further procee
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Michael Scott Pannell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion challenging his sentence as an armed career criminal based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). We previously placed the appeal in abeyance for United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018). Pannell now moves to vacate his sentence and remand his case for further proceed..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Scott Pannell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion challenging his sentence as an armed career criminal based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). We previously placed the appeal in abeyance for United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018). Pannell now moves to vacate his sentence and remand his case for further proceedings in accordance with Hodge. The Government contends that vacatur of Pannell's sentence is inappropriate because Pannell appeals the denial of § 2255 relief rather than the sentence in his criminal case. However, the Government agrees that it is appropriate to vacate the district court's order and remand the case for further proceedings.
In view of our decision in Hodge, we grant a certificate of appealability. We deny Pannell's motion to vacate his sentence, grant the motion to remand, vacate the district court's order denying § 2255 relief, and remand for further proceedings in light of Hodge. Pannell's motion to expedite is denied as moot. We 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.
Source: Leagle
