UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY RODNEY GREEN,
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-03-00292)
Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: February 15, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley I. Selden, SELDEN LAW OFFICES, L.C., Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Rodney Green pled guilty to conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced following the
Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). The district court sentenced Green to seventy-two months
of imprisonment relying on Booker, and our decision in United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). Green
appeals, alleging he was improperly sentenced under Booker. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Green contends that his due process rights, as informed
by ex post facto principles, were 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
making the Federal Sentencing 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. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 919-21 (9th Cir. 2005)
(rejecting ex post facto claim) United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d
538, 539-40 (7th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d
107, 110-11 (1st Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Scroggins, 411
F.3d 572, 575-77 (5th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Duncan,
400 F.3d 1297, 1306-08 (11th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
___, 126 S. Ct. 432 (2005).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -