United States v. Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4902
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CURTIS DAVIS, JR., a/k/a Billy Dee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-03-391)
Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007
Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William N. Nettles, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Davis, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distributing
five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of
cocaine base (Count 1) and money laundering under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(a)(1) (2000) (Count 11). Adopting the recommendations in
the presentence report, the district court sentenced Davis to a
life sentence for Count 1 and a 240-month concurrent sentence for
Count 11. At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated
that, even if the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were to be found
“nonbinding,” it would give Davis an identical alternative
sentence. (J.A. 59). The court referenced the 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) factors in its criminal
judgment. On appeal, Davis alleges he was sentenced in violation
of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
Davis alleges that he was sentenced based on facts not
found by the jury or admitted by him in violation of Blakely and
Booker. Because Davis timely objected on this basis in the district
court, we review his claim for harmless error.* United States v.
Rodriguez, 433 F.3d 411, 415-16 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v.
*
We offer no criticism of the district judge, who followed the
law and procedure in effect at the time Davis was sentenced.
- 2 -
Mackins, 315 F.3d 399, 405 (4th Cir. 2003). We find no harmless
error, however, as the district court stated it would have given
Davis an identical sentence even if the Sentencing Guidelines were
found to be advisory. United States v. Shatley, 448 F.3d 264,
267-68 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 310 (2006) (holding that
in light of district court’s finding that it would impose an
identical alternative sentence, any Sixth Amendment Booker error was
harmless).
Accordingly, we affirm Davis’ 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
- 3 -