UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4785
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES THURMAN DAUGHTIE,
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-04-6-F)
Submitted: August 3, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Thurman Daughtie pled guilty without a written plea
agreement to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and
use of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. He was
sentenced to 101 months imprisonment (41 months on the drug count
and 60 months on the firearms count, to run consecutively),
followed by five years of supervised release. The court also
announced an identical alternative sentence pursuant to United
States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion
issued by 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated, 125 S.
Ct. 1051 (2005). Daughtie appeals his sentence on the drug count,
contending that the judicially enhanced guidelines sentence was
imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment under United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We find that, because the
alternative discretionary sentence was identical to the sentence
imposed under the federal sentencing guidelines as they existed at
the time, any error in the imposition of Daughtie’s sentence was
harmless. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769. Accordingly, 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
- 2 -