UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4621
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GARFIELD ANTHONY ANDERSON, a/k/a James
McDonald,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-70)
Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank
D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine
Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Garfield Anthony Anderson pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326 (a), (b)(2) (2000). Anderson was sentenced to
ninety-six months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years of
supervised release. The district court also specified an identical
alternative sentence of ninety-six months followed by three years
supervised release, 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).
Anderson 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). The
case was held in abeyance pending decision in United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). That opinion has now issued and
applies the Court’s reasoning in Blakely to the federal sentencing
guidelines.
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. Accordingly, we affirm Anderson’s sentence.
- 2 -
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 -