UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4363
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ARDELL CANADY,
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-02-127)
Submitted: May 31, 2005 Decided: July 13, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
William T. Peregoy, Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
After a trial ending in a mistrial, James Ardell Canady
pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute and distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine,
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) (Count One); possession of more than 5 grams
of crack with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000) (Counts
Two and Four); and using or carrying a firearm during a drug
offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000) (Count Three). The district
court departed downward based on Canady’s substantial assistance,
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (2003), and
sentenced him to a term of 300 months imprisonment on Counts One,
Two, and Four, and a consecutive five-year term on Count Three.
Canady appeals his sentence. Citing Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.
Ct. 2531 (2004), Canady argues for the first time on appeal that
his sentence is unconstitutional. He also contends that the
district court clearly erred in determining that he was a leader or
organizer and in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility. Canady does not challenge his conviction. For the
reasons explained below, we affirm the conviction, but vacate the
sentence and remand for resentencing.
Because Canady did not rely on Blakely in the district
court, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). In United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court held
- 2 -
that Blakely applies to the federal sentencing guidelines and that
the mandatory guidelines scheme which provides for sentence
enhancements based on facts found by the court violated the Sixth
Amendment; the Court remedied the constitutional violation by
severing and excising the statutory provisions that mandate
sentencing and appellate review under the guidelines, thus making
the guidelines advisory. 125 S. Ct. at 746-48, 755-56 (Stevens,
J.); 756-57 (Breyer, J.). Subsequently, in Hughes, this court held
that a sentence that was imposed under the pre-Booker mandatory
sentencing scheme and was enhanced based on facts found by the
court, not by a jury, constitutes plain error that affects the
defendant’s substantial rights and warrants reversal under Booker
when the sentence “exceeded the maximum allowed based on the facts
found by the jury alone” and the record does not disclose what
discretionary sentence the district court would have imposed under
an advisory guideline scheme. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47, 556.
Canady’s offense level was increased based on the
quantity of crack involved and because the court found that he was
a leader in the offense. His guilty plea established that he
conspired to distribute more than fifty grams of crack and, at
sentencing, he conceded that there was evidence to support the
recommended base offense level of 38. USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1) (more
than 1.5 kilograms of crack). Because Canady did not contest the
amount of crack on which the base offense level was calculated, the
- 3 -
base offense level was not determined on facts found by the judge,
and no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.
The court did make the factual finding that Canady was a
leader or organizer in the conspiracy. Although Canady contends on
appeal that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous, the
district court had before it information indicating that thirteen
named individuals sold drugs for Canady in a charged conspiracy
that lasted from 1991 to 2002. An agent from the North Carolina
State Bureau of Investigation testified at Canady’s sentencing
hearing that Canady supplied drugs to an open-air drug market in
Jacksonville, North Carolina, and was in a leadership position over
at least five people. On this evidence, the district court did not
clearly err in finding that Canady had a leadership role.
However, without the role adjustment, Canady’s offense
level would have been 38 rather than 42 and his guideline range
(with criminal history category III) would have been 292-365 months
rather than 360 months to life. Thus, the maximum sentence
authorized by Canady’s admissions was 365 months. Hughes, 401 F.3d
at 547. The 300-month sentence, which resulted in part from
judicial fact-finding and in part from a downward departure, was
within the guideline range authorized by the facts Canady admitted.
But had the court used a guideline range of 292-365 months and
departed by sixty months, the sentence would have been 232 months.
- 4 -
Under Booker, the district court’s fact finding
concerning Canady’s role constituted error, and the error is plain.
We conclude that the error was prejudicial because Canady’s 300-
month sentence for the drug counts was longer than it would have
been without the Sixth Amendment violation and thus his substantial
rights were affected. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 548-49. We therefore
exercise our discretion to notice the error, vacate the sentence,
and remand for resentencing consistent with Booker.* Id. at 556.
In a letter filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j),
Canady argues that any sentence imposed under the mandatory
guideline scheme should be vacated and remanded for resentencing.
A defendant making this claim must also show plain error, including
actual prejudice. United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 223-25
(4th Cir. 2005). Canady cannot show prejudice because the district
court expressed no desire to impose a lesser sentence than the
mandatory guidelines permitted. Id. at 224-25.
With respect to the district court’s decision that Canady
was not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility,
we conclude that the court did not clearly err. United States v.
Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); USSG
*
Just as we noted in Hughes, “[w]e of course offer no
criticism of the district court judge, who followed the law and
procedure in effect at the time” of Canady’s sentencing. Hughes,
401 F.3d at 545 n.4. See generally Johnson v. United States, 520
U.S. 461, 468 (1997) (stating that an error is “plain” if “the law
at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at
the time of appeal).
- 5 -
§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.2) (2003) (defendant who puts the government
to its burden of proof at trial before pleading guilty usually is
not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility).
Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand the case
for resentencing consistent with Booker and Hughes. Although the
sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes clear
that a sentencing court must still “consult [the] Guidelines and
take them into account when sentencing.” 125 S. Ct. at 767. On
remand, the district court should first determine the appropriate
sentencing range under the guidelines, making all factual findings
appropriate for that determination. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. The
court should consider this sentencing range along with the other
factors described in 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005),
and then impose a sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside
the guidelines range, the court should explain its reasons for the
departure as required by 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(c)(2). Id. The sentence
must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
reasonable.” Id. 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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
- 6 -