United States v. Robinson , 20 F. App'x 226 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENYATA DEMORIS ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-00-304)
Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 15, 2001
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney,
Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenyata Demoris Robinson appeals from his two convictions for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base “crack” and
sentence of 211 months imprisonment. Robinson alleges that his
jury instructions were erroneous in light of Apprendi v. New Jer-
sey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We first note that because Robinson was sentenced within the
statutory maximum, his convictions are unaffected by the Apprendi
opinion. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490; see United States v. Kinter,
235 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2000) (Apprendi does not apply to
a judge’s exercise of sentencing discretion within a statutory
range so long as a defendant’s sentence is not set beyond the
maximum term specified in the substantive statute), cert. denied,
121 S. Ct. 1393 (2001). Second, we find that the jury was properly
charged to find drug amounts, in any event. United States v.
Richardson, 233 F.3d 223, 231 (4th Cir. 2000), petition for cert.
filed (Mar. 19, 2001) (No. 00-9234). Accordingly, we affirm
Robinson’s convictions and 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