UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JACQUELINE QUANTELLA FOWLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-04-58)
Submitted: May 3, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006
Before LUTTIG,* WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Vidalia Patterson,
Research/Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine
Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
*
Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, Jacqueline Quantella Fowler was
convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). Fowler was
sentenced to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment. We find no error
and affirm Fowler’s conviction and sentence.
Fowler first contends that her predicate state conviction
did not satisfy § 922(g)(1) as a matter of law. She reasons that,
under North Carolina law, her maximum sentence was twelve months
because no aggravating factors were admitted to or found by a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt. See North Carolina v. Allen, 615 S.E.2d
256, 265 (N.C. 2005) (holding, after Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296 (2004), statutory maximum is the maximum that a particular
defendant can face in light of her criminal history and the facts
found by a jury or admitted by defendant). However, as Fowler
conceded at trial, her argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 297
(2005), which holds that United States v. Jones, 195 F.3d 205 (4th
Cir. 1999), is still viable after Blakely and United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and reaffirms that a prior North
Carolina conviction satisfies § 922(g)(1) if any defendant charged
with that crime could receive a sentence in excess of one year.
Thus, because it is undisputed that a sentence of over twelve
months could be imposed on a defendant convicted of felony
- 3 -
possession of cocaine in North Carolina, Fowler’s prior conviction
was properly considered a predicate felony under § 922(g)(1).
Fowler also contends that her sentence is unreasonable.
After Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in determining
a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still required to
calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as
well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Id.
If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline
range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 2006 WL
1057741 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-10474). Because the district
court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, properly
calculated and considered the guideline range, and weighed the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude Fowler’s sentence is
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Fowler’s conviction and 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
- 4 -