United States v. Worstell ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-4709
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KRISTINA M. WORSTELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-01-144)
    Submitted:   July 10, 2003                 Decided:    July 15, 2003
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brian A. Glasser, Eric B. Snyder, BAILEY & GLASSER, L.L.P.,
    Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.    Kasey Warner, United
    States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Kristina Worstell appeals the 41-month sentence imposed after
    a jury found her guilty of assaulting a postal employee, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 111
     (2000).        We affirm.
    Worstell contends that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000) (holding any fact, other than prior conviction, that
    increases criminal penalty beyond prescribed statutory maximum must
    be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt), the
    district court impermissibly subjected her to a higher sentencing
    guidelines range upon a finding that the assault caused serious
    bodily injury because that fact was not submitted to a jury and
    proven   beyond   a   reasonable   doubt.    We   have   previously   held
    sentencing factors are not required to be alleged in the indictment
    or submitted to the jury.      See United States v. Kinter, 
    235 F.3d 192
    , 202 (4th Cir. 2000).          Worstell was sentenced within the
    statutory maximum pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 111
    (b) upon a jury
    finding of bodily injury, and Apprendi does not apply.
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Worstell’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: 02-4709

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Traxler

Filed Date: 7/15/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024