UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4714
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES DANIEL BRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (CR-02-106)
Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew L. Wilder, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, James Daniel Bray was convicted
on two counts of coercion and enticement of a minor, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2422(b) (West Supp. 2005) (Counts 1 and 2), and
one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) (Count 7). The court
sentenced Bray to 204 months in prison, consisting of a 180-month
sentence on Count 1, a 168-month sentence on Count 2 with all but
twenty-four months to run concurrently, and a concurrent sixty-
month sentence on Count 7. The district court also specified an
identical alternative sentence of 204 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).
Bray appeals, arguing that pursuant to United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), his sentence violates the Sixth
Amendment because it was enhanced under the mandatory federal
sentencing guidelines scheme based on facts that were not found by
a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that, because the
alternate sentence the district court pronounced pursuant to 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553 (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), treating the sentencing
guidelines as advisory only, was identical to the sentence imposed
under the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines as they existed
- 2 -
at that time, any error resulting from the sentence imposed by the
district court was harmless. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769.
Accordingly, we affirm Bray’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 -