Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4758
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL E. SAVILLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-03-68)
Submitted: March 12, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Samuel E. Savilla appeals from the judgment of the
district court convicting him of manufacturing marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000), and sentencing him to eighteen
months imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Savilla’s initial claim of error on appeal is that the
district court erred in attributing ninety-one marijuana plants
found in his backyard as relevant conduct under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (2002). Because this claim involves a
matter of law, we review it de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517
U.S. 690, 699 (1996).
The sentencing guidelines encompass a broad range of
activity with respect to the cultivation of marijuana plants, see
USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (backg’d), and we have passed favorably on
this scheme, noting “Congress has established a system of stepped-
up punishment for growers.” United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49,
55 (4th Cir. 1996). The basis of this scheme is that each
marijuana plant has the potential to produce at least one hundred
kilograms of dried marijuana. See USSG § 2D1.1, comment.
(backg’d).
Our review of the record discloses that it is uncontested
that the plants in question grew after Savilla tossed marijuana
seeds on the ground in his yard. Moreover, although he did not
care for these plants in the same manner as those he germinated
- 2 -
indoors and transplanted to his garden, Savilla took no action to
destroy them. Under these circumstances we cannot conclude that
the district court erred in attributing the disputed plants as
relevant conduct.
In his proposed supplemental brief, Savilla also
questions the continuing validity of the Sentencing Reform Act of
1984, Pub. Law No. 98-473 (1984), on the basis of the Supreme
Court’s ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
This Court has considered this argument and rejected it. See
United States v. Hammoud, No. 03-4253 (4th Cir. Aug. 2, 2004)
(order).
Accordingly, although we grant Savilla’s corrected motion
to file a supplemental brief, we affirm the judgment of the
district court. 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 -