-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4791 MARTELL WHITAKER, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-98-1016) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 18, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Eduardo K. Curry, CURRY, CURRY & COUNTS, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Jane B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 2 UNITED STATES v. WHITAKER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Martell Whitaker appeals his sentence for money laundering in vio- lation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We affirm. Whitaker’s only argument on appeal is that the district court vio- lated the rule announced in the recent Supreme Court decision of Apprendi v. New Jersey, ___ U.S. ___,
68 U.S.L.W. 4576(U.S. June 26, 2000) (No. 99-478), when it granted the Government’s motion for an upward departure on the basis of conduct for which he had been acquitted at trial. This Court’s recent decision in United States v. Angle,
230 F.3d 113(4th Cir. 2000), makes clear that no Apprendi violation occurs where the sentence imposed does not exceed the sta- tutorily prescribed maximum penalty. Angle,
230 F.3d at 120("Ultimately, a court may still consider aggravating and mitigating factors that support a specific sentence within the statutorily pre- scribed range when sentencing a defendant, so long as the sentence imposed is not greater than the maximum statutory penalty for the statutory offense established by the jury’s verdict."). Because the departure at issue did not result in a sentence exceed- ing the statutorily prescribed maximum of 240 months, we find that no Apprendi violation occurred. Accordingly, we affirm Whitaker’s sentence and 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
Document Info
Docket Number: 99-4791
Filed Date: 12/18/2000
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014