UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4307
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN MANUEL RAMIREZ-GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-300)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Manuel Ramirez-Garcia appeals his seventy-seven
month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to illegal reentry
after sustaining a conviction for an aggravated felony. On appeal,
he contends that the district court’s adjustment of his offense
level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)
(2003) violated the Sixth Amendment under the reasoning of United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We affirm.
In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory
manner in which federal sentencing guidelines required courts to
impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by
a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. Id.
at 746, 750. Ramirez-Garcia contends that the § 2L1.2 offense
level increase violated Booker because the relevant judicial
findings were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judicial
finding required to apply the guideline adjustment was that
Ramirez-Garcia was previously convicted of a drug trafficking
offense for which he was sentenced to longer than thirteen months
imprisonment. Because Ramirez-Garcia did not object below on the
basis of the Sixth Amendment, we review for plain error. United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005).
In general, sentencing enhancements based on prior
convictions may be determined by the district court and need not be
charged in the indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See
- 2 -
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Ramirez-Garcia
does not dispute that prior convictions are exceptions to the
Booker framework. Instead, he contends that the district court
here did more than just find that he had a prior conviction; the
court also found that the conviction was one for drug trafficking
and that a certain length sentence had been imposed.
While certain factual findings regarding prior
convictions raise Sixth Amendment concerns, see United States v.
Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 841-43 (4th Cir. 2005), the disputed
issues in this case do not rise to that level. Because any
disputed issues in the instant case could be resolved by reference
to the relevant indictment and judgment and did not require review
of anything outside the record, the district court’s findings
regarding the nature of the prior convictions were proper. See
Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1262-63 (2005) (holding
that district courts are permitted to decide disputed issues of
fact regarding prior convictions for sentencing purposes, as long
as the dispute can be resolved by reference to the judicial
record).
Accordingly, we find that there was no error in
sentencing Ramirez-Garcia under § 2L1.2. Thus, we affirm. 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 -