United States v. Davis

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Davis

218 F. App'x 228

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

Docket04-4902

StatusUnpublished

This text of 218 F. App'x 228 (United States v. Davis) 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. Davis, 218 F. App'x 228 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

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, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (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. * *229 United States v. Rodriguez, 433 F.3d 411, 415-16 (4th Cir.2006); United States v. 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, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 310, 166 L.Ed.2d 155 (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.

*

We offer no criticism of the district judge, who followed the law and procedure in effect at *229 the time Davis was sentenced.

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

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, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (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. * *229 United States v. Rodriguez, 433 F.3d 411, 415-16 (4th Cir.2006); United States v. 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, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 310, 166 L.Ed.2d 155 (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.

*

We offer no criticism of the district judge, who followed the law and procedure in effect at *229 the time Davis was sentenced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. App'x 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-davis-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack