UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONNELL KING, a/k/a Life,
Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 04-7644)
Submitted: March 6, 2006 Decided: May 4, 2006
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
On September 15, 2004, we affirmed Ronnell King’s
convictions and sentence. See United States v. King, 113 Fed.
App’x. 504 (4th Cir. Sept. 15, 2004) (unpublished). On January 24,
2005, the Supreme Court of the United States granted King’s
petition for writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and
remanded for further consideration in light of United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We affirm King’s convictions for the
reasons stated in our prior opinion. We vacate his sentence and
remand for resentencing.
In Booker, the Supreme Court held that Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), applied to the federal sentencing
guidelines and that the mandatory manner in which the guidelines
required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts
found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the
Sixth Amendment. Thus, when a defendant pleads guilty and is
sentenced under the mandatory guidelines scheme, “[a]ny fact (other
than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence
exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea
of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or
proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 543 U.S. at
244.
Although King objected to the enhancements at issue, his
objections did not rest on the rule in Blakely. Therefore, this
- 2 -
court’s review is for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez,
433 F.3d 411, 415-16 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005).
In Hughes, this court held that a sentence imposed under
the pre-Booker mandatory sentencing scheme and enhanced based on
facts found by the court, not by a jury, constitutes plain error.
That error affects the defendant’s substantial rights and warrants
reversal under Booker when the record does not disclose what
discretionary sentence the district court would have imposed under
an advisory guideline scheme. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 555-56.
King’s sentence of 151 months’ imprisonment exceeded the
41 to 51 month sentencing range that would have applied absent the
enhancements that were based on facts not found by the jury or
admitted by King. Because the district court engaged in judicial
fact-finding to determine King’s offense level, and because the
resulting guideline range was imposed in a mandatory manner, there
was a Sixth Amendment violation under Booker.* 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.” 543 U.S. at 745. On
remand, the district court should first determine the appropriate
sentencing range under the guidelines, making all factual findings
*
Just as we noted in Hughes, 401 F.3d at 545 n.4, “[w]e of
course offer no criticism of the district judge, who followed the
law and procedure in effect at the time” of King’s sentencing.
- 3 -
appropriate for that determination. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. The
court should consider this sentencing range along with the other
factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and then impose a
sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside the guidelines
range, the court should explain its reasons for the departure as
required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). Id. The sentence must be
within the statutorily prescribed range and reasonable. Id. at
547; see also United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, although we affirm King’s convictions, we
vacate his sentence and remand for further consideration in light
of Booker. 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 IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
- 4 -