eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2005-10

United States v. Garris , 145 F. App'x 447 ( 2005 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4315
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LONNIE JAMIE GARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.  David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-79)
Submitted:   September 26, 2005           Decided:   October 18, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Megan J. Schueler, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lonnie       Jamie     Garris   pled     guilty    to   conspiracy   to
manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    (2000).      His sentencing occurred on March 3, 2005, after the
Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005), ruling that its decision in Blakely v. Washington,
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004), was applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines.
The district court, in sentencing Garris, applied the holding in
Booker.      The   court    sentenced      Garris    to   sixty-six    months   of
imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Garris contends that his due process rights,
as informed by ex post facto principles, are violated by the
imposition    of   a    sentence     under   the    Supreme    Court’s   remedial
decision in Booker (referring to the Court’s opinion expressed
through Justice Breyer, which makes the guidelines advisory rather
than   mandatory),       rather    than    under    the   mandatory    guidelines
applicable at the time of his offense.              We find that this claim is
without merit.         See United States v. Jamison,
    416 F.3d 538
     (7th
Cir. 2005) (rejecting ex post facto claim); United States v. Lata,
    415 F.3d 107
     (1st Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Scroggins,
    411 F.3d 572
    , 576 (5th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Duncan,
    400 F.3d 1297
     (11th Cir. 2005) (same), petition for cert. filed, __
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 20, 2005) (No. 05-5467).
Garris next challenges his sentence, asserting that it is
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and
provide just punishment. Garris admits that the sentence is within
the   properly   calculated   guideline   range.   We   have    carefully
reviewed the record and Garris’s contentions and find that the
sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable.          See United
States v. Hughes,
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting
after Booker that sentencing courts should determine the sentencing
range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under
§ 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory
maximum).
We accordingly affirm Garris’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
- 3 -