United States v. Brown , 194 F. App'x 136 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4955
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAYMONT DAVID BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-03-155-1)
    Submitted:   July 28, 2006                 Decided:   August 11, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Derrick W. Lefler, GIBSON, LEFLER & ASSOCIATES, Princeton, West
    Virginia, for Appellant.      Charles T. Miller, United States
    Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley,
    West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Pursuant to a plea agreement, Raymont David Brown pled
    guilty to distribution of a quantity of cocaine base (“crack”), in
    violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2000).     Brown appealed the
    district court’s original sentence of 137 months in prison.     We
    vacated Brown’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding
    that, under United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), Brown’s
    sentence violated the Sixth Amendment.
    Upon remand, the district court sentenced Brown to 115
    months in prison, based on the original guideline calculation as
    modified to reflect a two-level reduction in offense level granted
    pursuant to the government’s post-remand Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)
    motion for a reduction in sentence.   Brown timely appealed.
    Brown argues that his sentence following Booker violates
    his due process rights, as informed by ex post facto principles.
    This claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v.
    Davenport, 
    445 F.3d 366
     (4th Cir. 2006).
    Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s sentence.     We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4955

Citation Numbers: 194 F. App'x 136

Judges: Wilkinson, Gregory, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/11/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024