Opinion
No. 16-7225
03-28-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISIAH LAND, Defendant - Appellant.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Paul E. Shelton, Research and Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:01-cr-00197-RBS-1; 2:16-cv-00252-RBS) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Paul E. Shelton, Research and Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Isiah Land appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on whether the district court erred in ruling that Land's prior Virginia convictions for malicious wounding and unlawful wounding were violent felonies under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012), and we placed this appeal in abeyance for United States v. Jenkins, No. 16-4121, ___ F. App'x ___, 2018 WL 1225728 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) (holding Virginia convictions for unlawful wounding and malicious wounding qualified as violent felonies under § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)). In light of Jenkins, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See United States v. Land, No. 2:01-cr-00197-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2016). 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.
AFFIRMED