United States v. Murray , 174 F. App'x 664 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-15-2006
USA v. Murray
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3672
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Murray" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1426.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1426
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-3672
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
RODNEY MURRAY
a/k/a
RODNEY MILLER
Rodney Murray,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 02-cr-00172-32)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 2, 2006
Before: SLOVITER and FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.
(Filed: March 15, 2006 )
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
1
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Rodney Murray (“Murray”) appeals his conviction arising from a multi-defendant
drug conspiracy case. Murray argues that his sentence violates United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the District Court improperly found that Murray had
possessed a firearm, which was relevant to his sentencing guideline calculation. For the
reasons stated below, we will affirm Murray’s sentence.
I. Background
As we write solely for the parties, our recitation of the facts will be limited to those
necessary to our determination. Murray, along with 36 co-defendants, was indicted for
participating in a massive cocaine and crack conspiracy that spanned Philadelphia,
western Pennsylvania, Delaware, and other locations. Murray was charged with, and pled
guilty to, the following: conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 846; two counts of distributing more than five grams of crack cocaine, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a); two counts of distributing more than five grams of crack
cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 860(a); and two
counts of using a telephone in furtherance of a drug crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 843.
2
At Murray’s sentencing hearing, the District Court, following its view of the
requirements of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that Murray was
responsible only for the weight of cocaine and crack cocaine alleged in the indictment,
which resulted in an offense level of 32, plus one additional level for distribution within
1,000 feet of school property. The District Court overruled Murray’s objection to the
two-level enhancement for possessing a firearm, holding that Murray had admitted using
a firearm on at least one occasion. Murray was then given credit for acceptance of
responsibility, which reduced his total offense level to 32. The District Court then found
that, based on Murray’s total offense level of 32 and his criminal history category of VI,
Murray’s guideline range was 210-262 months. The District Court imposed a prison
sentence of 250 months.
II. Discussion
Murray appeals only his sentence, arguing that the District Court engaged in fact-
finding that violated his Sixth Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). Specifically, Murray contends that the District Court violated Booker when it
imposed a two-level increase to his guidelines offense level for possession of a firearm
based on the District Court’s finding that Murray had possessed a firearm. We disagree.
Murray acknowledges that on March 16, 1999, while this case was under
investigation and he was incarcerated on unrelated state charges, he gave a written
statement in which he explained his involvement with the drug conspiracy at issue here.
3
As part of this written statement, Murray stated that he was involved in “at least 20
shootings” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Over four years later, Murray moved to
suppress the March 16, 1999 written statement, claiming that it was coerced and that he
exaggerated his involvement in the conspiracy in order to appease law enforcement
officials. The District Court denied Murray’s suppression motion, and Murray eventually
pled guilty to the charges against him. At sentencing, the District Court imposed a two-
level increase to Murray’s total offense level based on his statements in the written
confession about firearm possession.
Murray’s argument that the District Court violated Booker by imposing the
dangerous weapon enhancement based on judicially found facts is without merit. As
noted above, the District Court made its finding concerning Murray’s gun possession
based on Murray’s own admissions contained in his March 16, 1999 written statement.
Because Murray has not provided any reason why the District Court’s use of his
admissions violates Booker, we will affirm the District Court’s imposition of a two-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we will affirm Murray’s sentence.
4