United States v. Reynolds

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
June 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-41227 Clerk
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRANDON DARNELL REYNOLDS, also known as Black,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-116-4
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brandon Darnell Reynolds appeals the 360-month sentence he
received after the jury found him guilty of conspiracy to
manufacture, distribute or possess with such intent, or dispense
50 grams or more of crack cocaine or 5 kilograms or more of a
substance that contained cocaine. Because Reynolds was sentenced
after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Reynolds’s argument that the
district court violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-41227
-2-
and his Sixth Amendment rights when it sentenced him based on a
drug amount found by a preponderance of the evidence and not on
the drug amount found by the jury is unavailing. See United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir. 2006). Reynolds’s
argument that the remedial portion of Booker does not apply to
him, because he committed his offense before Booker was decided,
is likewise unavailing. See United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d
598, 599 (5th Cir. 2005).
Reynolds’s argument that his sentence is unreasonable
because the district court followed the guidelines recommendation
for offenses involving crack cocaine does not amount to plain
error. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.
2006); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir.
2005); United States v. Fonts, 95 F.3d 372, 374 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.