UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4320
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PRUDENCE QUERIDA DOTSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-04-201)
Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 27, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Charles T.
Miller, Acting United States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant
United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Prudence Querida Dotson pled guilty to distribution of
.22 grams of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a) (2000). She appeals her 42-month sentence, arguing that
it violates her due process rights, as informed by ex post facto
principles. She also asserts that the sentence imposed was not
reasonable. Finding no merit to Dotson’s claims, we affirm her
sentence.
Dotson first contends that her 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 United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005)
(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 her
offense. We find that this claim is without merit. See United
States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting ex post
facto claim); United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538 (7th Cir.
2005) (same); 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.)
(same), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 432 (2005).
Dotson also challenges the reasonableness of her
sentence. She asserts that the 42-month sentence imposed is
- 2 -
greater than necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and provide
her with drug treatment and rehabilitation. We have carefully
reviewed the record and Dotson’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 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).
Accordingly, we affirm Dotson’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 -