United States v. Singleton , 274 F. App'x 236 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4914
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY SINGLETON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:02-cr-00170-RDB)
Submitted: April 4, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra L. Dwyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Singleton was convicted by a jury of drug
trafficking, possession of a firearm in relation to drug
trafficking, and possession of a firearm while a felon, and
sentenced to 248 months imprisonment. Singleton appealed,
challenging the district court’s denial of his suppression motion,
its admission into evidence of several documents, and the sentence
imposed. We rejected the first two claims, affirming Singleton’s
conviction, but vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent
with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). See United
States v. Singleton, 441 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Singleton I”).
On remand, the district court sentenced Singleton to 195
months imprisonment. He noted a timely appeal. In his brief,
Singleton raises the same two challenges to his conviction that
were raised and rejected in his first appeal; namely, that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in
admitting into evidence certain phone records.
In Singleton I, we rejected the claims Singleton now
seeks to raise in this appeal. We find that Singleton’s claims are
barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and that none of the
exceptions apply. See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661
(4th Cir. 1999) (discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); see
also Invention Submission Corp. v. Dudas, 413 F.3d 411, 414-15 (4th
- 2 -
Cir. 2005) (discussing mandate rule). Accordingly, we affirm
Singleton’s conviction.
Singleton has also filed a motion to file a supplemental
brief challenging the reasonableness of his sentence in light of
Amendment 706 to the guidelines, which lowered the base offense
level for drug offenses involving crack cocaine. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2D1.1 (2007); USSG App. C.
Amend. 706. This amendment has been made retroactive, effective
March 3, 2008. See USSG § 1B1.10(c) (Mar. 3, 2008). Although we
grant Singleton’s motion to file a supplemental brief, we deny the
relief sought therein.
We have recently held that it is for the district court
to first assess whether and to what extent a criminal defendant’s
sentence may be affected by Amendment 706, either sua sponte or by
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v.
Brewer, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 733395 (4th Cir. Mar. 20, 2008).
Accordingly, we deny Singleton’s request for resentencing without
prejudice to his right to pursue relief in the district court. 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 -