UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL SHANE SATTERFIELD, a/k/a Michael Shane
Gillispie,
Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
(S. Ct. No. 04-8542)
Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: February 28, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H.
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Shane Satterfield pled guilty to three counts of
bank robbery and was sentenced as a career offender to a term of
160 months imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1
(2003). We affirmed his sentence and denied rehearing. United
States v. Satterfield, No. 04-4254, 2004 WL 2491574 (4th Cir.
November 5, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court subsequently
granted Satterfield’s petition for certiorari, vacated this court’s
judgment, and remanded his case for further proceedings in light of
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
Satterfield was sentenced before the decisions in Booker
and its predecessor, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004),
and he did not raise objections to his sentence based on the
mandatory nature of the sentencing guidelines or the district
court’s application of sentencing enhancements based on judicial
fact finding rather than facts he admitted. Therefore, we review
his sentence for plain error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
540, 546-60 (4th Cir. 2005). Satterfield now contends that the
district court plainly erred under Booker in applying the
guidelines as mandatory. Our review of the record discloses that
the district court gave no indication that it would impose a lower
sentence under an advisory guideline system. Therefore,
Satterfield cannot show actual prejudice, and resentencing is not
- 2 -
authorized on this ground. United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208,
223-24 (4th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. 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 -