UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4315
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LONNIE JAMIE GARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-79)
Submitted: September 26, 2005 Decided: October 18, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Megan J. Schueler, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States
Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Jamie Garris pled guilty to conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000). His sentencing occurred on March 3, 2005, after the
Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005), ruling that its decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.
296 (2004), was applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines.
The district court, in sentencing Garris, applied the holding in
Booker. The court sentenced Garris to sixty-six months of
imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Garris contends that his due process rights,
as informed by ex post facto principles, are violated by the
imposition of a sentence under the Supreme Court’s remedial
decision in Booker (referring to the Court’s opinion expressed
through Justice Breyer, which makes the guidelines advisory rather
than mandatory), rather than under the mandatory guidelines
applicable at the time of his offense. We find that this claim is
without merit. See United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538 (7th
Cir. 2005) (rejecting ex post facto claim); United States v. Lata,
415 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Scroggins,
411 F.3d 572, 576 (5th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Duncan,
400 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2005) (same), petition for cert. filed, __
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 20, 2005) (No. 05-5467).
Garris next challenges his sentence, asserting that it is
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and
provide just punishment. Garris admits that the sentence is within
the properly calculated guideline range. We have carefully
reviewed the record and Garris’s contentions and find that the
sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting
after Booker that sentencing courts should determine the sentencing
range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under
§ 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory
maximum).
We accordingly affirm Garris’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 -