UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH R. DEBELLOTTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-8)
Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 30, 2005
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas R. Ceraso, CERASO LAW OFFICES, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, for
Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Randolph J.
Bernard, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth R. Debellotte appeals the twenty-one-month
sentence imposed by the district court after Debellotte pled guilty
to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp.
2005). Debellotte contends that the district court erred by
enhancing his sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2B1.1(b)(8)(B) (2003). We affirm.
The district court applied a two-level enhancement under
USSG § 2B1.1(b)(8)(B) on the ground that a substantial part of the
fraud scheme was committed outside the United States. Debellotte
argues that the enhancement was inappropriate under United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Excluding the two-level
enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(8)(B) and without considering the
three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility,
see United States v. Evans, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2005 WL 1705531, at
*1 & n.4 (4th Cir. July 22, 2005), Debellotte’s offense level would
have been 17. With a criminal history category of I, Debellotte’s
guideline range would have been twenty-four to thirty months. USSG
Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table). Because Debellotte’s twenty-one
month sentence is below this range, we find that no Sixth Amendment
error occurred. Moreover, Debellotte’s challenge to the
applicability of the enhancement in determining his guideline range
is without merit because the record makes clear that the
enhancement was appropriate.
- 2 -
For these reasons, we affirm Debellotte’s conviction and
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 -