United States v. James

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4194
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JAMES, a/k/a Mutcey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-148)
Submitted: June 9, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States
Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie James pled guilty to one count of possession with
intent to distribute and distribution of five grams or more of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). The
district court determined James was responsible for 2.5 kilograms
of cocaine base, and sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment. We
affirm James’s sentence.*
The sole issue James raises on appeal is the contention
he should be resentenced in light of United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), because the district court based his offense level
on a drug weight that was neither admitted by him nor found by a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As James raises this issue for the
first time on appeal, review is for plain error. See United
States v. Evans, 416 F.3d 298, 300 (4th Cir. 2005). To establish
that a Sixth Amendment error occurred during sentencing, a
defendant must show that the district court imposed a sentence
exceeding the maximum allowed based only on the facts to which he
admitted. Id. “Admissions may take a variety of forms, including
guilty pleas and stipulations, a defendant’s own statements in open
court, and representations by counsel.” United States v. Revels,
___F.3d___, 2006 WL 1134148, at *2 (4th Cir. May 1, 2006) (No.
05-4142) (internal citations omitted).
*
This appeal was placed in abeyance pending the issuance of
United States v. Jones, No. 03-4489, 2006 WL 1328699 (4th Cir.
May 16, 2006) (unpublished).
- 2 -
At sentencing, counsel represented that James “did not
disagree with the total weight which was computed in the
presentence report,” but rather that James disagreed with the
specific dates on which drug transactions occurred. Any issues
involving specific dates were resolved, and counsel withdrew his
objections to the presentence report. Consequently, James was
assigned an offense level based on the drug weight specified in the
presentence report. Like the representation made in Jones,
counsel’s assertion that James did not disagree with the total
weight computed served as the “functional equivalent” of adopting
the factual basis for sentencing. See Jones, 2006 WL 1328699, at
*3; see also Revels, 2006 WL 1134148, at *2. Therefore, we
conclude judicial factfinding was not required and there was no
Sixth Amendment error.
Accordingly, we affirm James’s 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 -