Filed: Sep. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4610 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FERDINAND ALONZO ADAMS, a/k/a Lonnie Alonzo Adams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CR-03-108) Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: September 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4610 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FERDINAND ALONZO ADAMS, a/k/a Lonnie Alonzo Adams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CR-03-108) Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: September 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FERDINAND ALONZO ADAMS, a/k/a Lonnie Alonzo
Adams,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-03-108)
Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: September 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harvey Greenberg, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F.
Loucks, United States Attorney, Steven M. Dunne, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ferdinand Alonzo Adams pled guilty without a plea
agreement to five counts of bank fraud and was found guilty after
a jury trial of six additional counts of bank fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000). He was sentenced to fifty months in
prison and four years of supervised release. Adams appeals,
claiming his sentence was imposed in violation of Blakely v.
Washington,
542 U.S. 296 (2004). We affirm.
In United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the
Supreme Court applied the rationale of Blakely to the federal
sentencing guidelines and held that the mandatory guidelines scheme
that provided for sentence enhancements based on facts found by the
court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth
Amendment.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 746-48, 755-56 (Stevens, J.,
opinion of the court). The Court remedied the constitutional
violation by severing two statutory provisions, 18 U.S.C.A. §
3553(b)(1) (West Supp. 2004) (requiring sentencing courts to impose
a sentence within the applicable guidelines range), and 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3742(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2004) (setting forth appellate
standards of review for guideline issues), thereby making the
guidelines advisory. United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546
(4th Cir. 2005) (citing
Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757, 764 (Breyer, J.,
opinion of the Court)).
- 2 -
Adams’ sentencing hearing occurred after the Supreme
Court’s decision in Blakely but before this court’s decision in
United States v. Hammoud,
378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order),
opinion issued by
381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated,
125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005), which directed district courts to treat the
federal sentencing guidelines as being unaffected by Blakely but
also recommended district courts to specify an alternate sentence
treating the guidelines as advisory only. In the absence of this
court’s guidance, the district court held that Blakely invalidated
the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines. (J.A. at 158).
Employing the guidelines as a reference only, the district court
used its discretion to impose a sentence of fifty months in prison,
which equaled the sentence recommended by the guidelines. (J.A.
at 165-68).
We conclude that the sentence imposed was not in error
because the district court did not treat the guidelines as
mandatory. United States v. White,
405 F.3d 208, 216-17 (4th Cir.
2005) (holding that the imposition of a sentence under a mandatory
guideline regime is error). In addition, because the district
court operated under its own discretion and treated the guidelines
as advisory only, the district court did not engage in factual
finding necessary to enhance the sentence; therefore, we conclude
that Adams’ Sixth Amendment rights were not violated. Hughes,
401
F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that, under a mandatory guideline
- 3 -
regime, the imposition of a sentence exceeding the maximum
authorized by jury findings is error).
Finding no error, we affirm. 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
- 4 -