United States v. Garcia ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4692
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WARNER O’NEIL GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-03-795)
Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United
States Attorney, Alston C. Badger, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Warner O’Neil Garcia pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000)
and was sentenced to seventy-two months of imprisonment. On
appeal, Garcia alleges that he was sentenced in violation of the
Sixth Amendment, citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
The Blakely opinion has been extended to the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Garcia contends that his sentence was improperly enhanced
four levels for possessing the gun in connection with another
felony under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5)
(2003). Garcia, however, has not suffered a Sixth Amendment
violation because he was sentenced within the range allowable
without the enhancement in question. See United States v. Evans,
416 F.3d 298, 300-01 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that if
sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted by
defendant or found by jury there is no Sixth Amendment violation).
This is because Garcia admitted to the conduct underlying his base
offense level of twenty, under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), which, with
his criminal history category of V, yields a sentencing range of
sixty-three to seventy-eight months. Thus, even if it was
erroneous for the district court to enhance Garcia’s sentence,
- 2 -
there has been no Sixth Amendment error because he was sentenced
within the range of admitted conduct. Evans, 416 F.3d at 300-01.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -