United States of America v. Devin Taylor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4774
DEVIN TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CR-98-454)
Submitted: May 11, 2000
Decided: May 19, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Thanos Kanellakos, THANOS KANELLAKOS, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Devin Taylor appeals his 262-month sentence based upon a guilty
plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
heroin in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999). Taylor con-
tends that the sentencing court erred in finding he was a career
offender based upon his prior state court conviction for escape from
custody. Taylor argues this prior state conviction was not a "crime of
violence" under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 (1998).
Because Taylor's sentence fell within the two overlapping, dis-
puted guidelines ranges and because the court expressly announced
the sentence it imposed would have been the same under either guide-
lines range, review of the issue presented by Taylor is unnecessary.
See United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 432-33 (4th Cir. 1989)
(quoting United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 931 (2d Cir.
1988)).
Accordingly, we affirm Taylor's 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
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2

-- 2 of 2 --