United States of America v. Carl Ray McNeil, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4308
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL RAY MCNEIL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 23-6786)
Submitted: September 9, 2024 Decided: September 11, 2024
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Raymond C. Tarlton, TARLTON LAW PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Lisa H. Miller, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Thomas E. Booth, Appellate Section, Criminal Division,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Michael F. Easley,
Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy P.
Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Carl Ray McNeil, Jr., pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). McNeil appealed his 365-month sentence,
arguing that the district court’s factfinding in sentencing him under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The
Supreme Court vacated our prior decision affirming McNeil’s sentence and remanded this
case to us for further consideration in light of Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840
(2024). See McNeil v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2712, 2713 (2024).
Upon review, we conclude that, under Erlinger, the district court erred by
sentencing McNeil pursuant to the ACCA without a jury first finding that McNeil
committed his prior offenses on different occasions. See 144 S. Ct. at 1852. Accordingly,
we vacate McNeil’s sentence and remand the case to the district court for further
proceedings. 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

-- 2 of 2 --