UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT CHARLES WASHINGTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-03-329)
Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 1, 2005
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jill E. M. HaLevi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United
States Attorney, Alston C. Badger, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Charles Washington, Jr. pled guilty to possession
of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000), and possession of a firearm
during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2000). The district court sentenced Washington
to 102 months’ imprisonment, consisting of a forty-two-month
sentence on the § 922(g) offense, and a consecutive sixty-month
term on the § 924(c) offense. The district court also specified an
identical alternative sentence of 102 months pursuant to this
court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426
(4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316, 353-54
(4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 125
S. Ct. 1051 (2005).
Washington appealed, challenging the constitutionality of
the federal sentencing scheme in light of the Supreme Court’s
decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
Washington specifically challenges the determination of his offense
level under the guidelines by reference to a prior conviction as a
conviction for a controlled substance offense. The case was held
in abeyance pending the decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738 (2005). That opinion has now issued and applied the
Court’s reasoning in Blakely to the federal sentencing guidelines.
- 2 -
We conclude that, because the alternative sentence the
district court pronounced in case the federal sentencing guidelines
were invalidated was identical to the mandatory sentence imposed
under the federal sentencing guidelines as they existed at that
time, any error resulting from the sentence imposed by the district
court was harmless. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769. Accordingly,
we affirm Washington’s 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
- 3 -