United States v. Bethea

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Bethea

128 F. App'x 303

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 2005

Docket04-5022

StatusUnpublished

This text of 128 F. App'x 303 (United States v. Bethea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bethea, 128 F. App'x 303 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jason Olson Bethea pled guilty to one count of escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2000). At sentencing, the district court granted the Government’s motion and imposed an upward departure and sentenced Bethea to five years’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum for the offense. The court, after considering the guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2004), stated that even if the guidelines were not mandatory, it would impose the same sentence. On appeal, Bethea cites United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), for the proposition that the court erred in imposing a sentence under the sentencing guidelines. Bethea further argues the upward enhancement was improper. We affirm.

Because the district court’s alternate sentence was based upon the guidelines and the factors under § 3553(a) and was not greater than the statutory maximum, we find the upward departure and the five year sentence to be harmless error. We further find the sentence reasonable. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-67 (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court).

Accordingly, we affirm the 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jason Olson Bethea pled guilty to one count of escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2000). At sentencing, the district court granted the Government’s motion and imposed an upward departure and sentenced Bethea to five years’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum for the offense. The court, after considering the guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2004), stated that even if the guidelines were not mandatory, it would impose the same sentence. On appeal, Bethea cites United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), for the proposition that the court erred in imposing a sentence under the sentencing guidelines. Bethea further argues the upward enhancement was improper. We affirm.

Because the district court’s alternate sentence was based upon the guidelines and the factors under § 3553(a) and was not greater than the statutory maximum, we find the upward departure and the five year sentence to be harmless error. We further find the sentence reasonable. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-67 (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court).

Accordingly, we affirm the 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F. App'x 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bethea-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack