UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4972
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD TOLAND FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (CR-04-18)
Submitted: May 5, 2006 Decided: June 7, 2006
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherwin J. Jacobs, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Richard Toland Fields of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district
court sentenced him to a 210-month sentence, which was twenty-five
months below the advisory sentencing guideline range. Fields
appeals his sentence. We affirm.
Citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
Fields contends that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. As
Fields correctly notes, Booker held that the mandatory application
of the federal sentencing guidelines to impose sentencing
enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance
of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 233-34.
However, the district court treated the guidelines as advisory in
determining Fields’ sentence, and the use of the preponderance of
the evidence standard while applying the guidelines as advisory
does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Morris,
429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).
Fields also asserts that the district court erred in
finding that he was accountable for at least 150 grams of crack and
that he possessed a firearm during the course of the conspiracy.
Our review of the trial and sentencing transcripts leads us to
conclude that the court did not clearly err in making these
findings. See United States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972 (4th Cir.
1996) (noting that approximation of amount of drugs for sentencing
not clearly erroneous if supported by competent record evidence);
- 2 -
United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 880 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating
standard of review for firearm enhancement).
Accordingly, we affirm Fields’ 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 -