UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4918
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CAROLINE SHAMBLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-04-20)
Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael R. Cline, MICHAEL R. CLINE LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, W.
Chad Noel, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Caroline Shamblin pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of maintaining a residence for the purpose
of manufacturing, distributing, or using methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C.
§ 856(a)(1) (2000), and was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment.1
At sentencing, the district court found, by a preponderance of the
evidence--and over Shamblin’s objections--that she was responsible
for a total drug weight of 524.58 kilograms of marijuana
equivalent, and assigned a base offense level of 28. The court
then awarded Shamblin a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1(a), and a two-level reduction based on
the “safety valve” provisions, USSG §§ 2D1.1(b)(6), 5C1.2,
resulting in a total offense level of 23. With a criminal history
category of I, Shamblin’s guidelines sentencing range was 46 to 57
months imprisonment. The court imposed a sentence at the bottom of
the range. Shamblin appeals, challenging her sentence under
United States v. Booker, ___U.S.___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
Shamblin argues that her base offense level was calculated, in
part, based on judicial factfinding in violation of Booker. We
agree.
1
Neither the indictment nor the plea agreement specified the
quantity of methamphetamine involved in the offense. Nor did
Shamblin otherwise admit responsibility for a particular quantity
of methamphetamine.
- 2 -
Shamblin’s base offense level, without the challenged
drug weights, would have been 122 and her guideline range would
have been 10 to 16 months imprisonment. Therefore, because
Shamblin’s sentence was greater than that authorized by the facts
she admitted in her guilty plea, we vacate her sentence and remand
for resentencing in accordance with Booker.3
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. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th
Cir. 2005) (applying Booker on plain error review). The court
should consider this sentencing range along with the other factors
described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and then impose a
sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside the guidelines
2
The applicable guideline for a violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 856(a)(1) is found in USSG § 2D1.8, which provides that the base
offense level is to be determined according to the offense level in
§ 2D1.1 applicable to the underlying controlled substance offense.
The underlying substance offense, manufacturing methamphetamine,
has a minimum base offense level of 12. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(14).
3
Just as we noted in United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
545 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005), “[w]e of course offer no criticism of the
district judge, who followed the law and procedure in effect at the
time” of Shamblin’s sentencing.
- 3 -
range, the court should explain its reasons for the departure as
required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (2000). Id. The sentence must
be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.”
Id. at 546-47. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 4 -