United States v. Scott , 195 F. App'x 167 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4680
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUDOLPH R. SCOTT, a/k/a Ron,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-4763
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ARTHUR MATTISON, a/k/a Mad Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-1358)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 23, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everett P. Godfrey, Jr., Margaret A. Chamberlain, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellants. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Regan A. Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Rudolph Scott and Charles Arthur Mattison were found
guilty after a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute between five
and fifty grams of cocaine base, distribution of less than five
grams of crack cocaine (Mattison), and distribution of more than
five grams of crack cocaine (Scott). Presentence reports (“PSRs”)
were prepared and later amended at the district court’s direction,
recommending that each Defendant be held responsible for forty-nine
grams of crack cocaine. Scott’s calculated guideline range was
151-188 months’ imprisonment. Mattison’s calculated guideline
range was 135-168 months.
Appellants objected to their sentences on the basis of
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The district court
overruled Appellants’ objections and sentenced Scott and Mattison
to 156 months’ imprisonment on each count of conviction, to run
concurrently. The court held the sentencing hearings after United
States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004), vacated, 543 U.S.
1097 (2005), issued and stated that, if the guidelines were held to
be unconstitutional and not applied, it would impose the same
sentence for Mattison and one additional year for Scott. On
appeal, Appellants assert that the district court erred under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by sentencing them
based on drug quantity in excess of that established by the jury
- 3 -
verdict. The Government contends that any error was harmless in
light of the alternative sentences.
Appellants argue that they should not be held responsible
for forty-nine grams of cocaine base, resulting in a base offense
level of 30, because the quantity was neither proven beyond a
reasonable doubt nor admitted. Because Appellants properly
preserved these Sixth Amendment claims, this court reviews under
the harmless error analysis. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 268. The
Government bears the burden in harmless error review of showing
beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the
defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Mackins, 315 F.3d
399, 405 (4th Cir. 2003).
The district court stated that it would impose
non-guidelines alternative sentences that were identical to
Mattison’s actual sentence and for Scott, one year higher than his
actual sentence. Thus, the Government has met its burden of
demonstrating that the constitutional error in this case was
harmless. United States v. Shatley, 448 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir.
2006). The district court followed this court’s recommendation in
Hammoud, its alternative sentences were within the range
recommended by the sentencing guidelines, and this court takes the
district court at its word when it states that it would impose the
sentences articulated under the advisory guideline system. See
id..
- 4 -
Accordingly, we affirm Appellants’ sentences and deny
their motions to remand for resentencing. 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
- 5 -