UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4740
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GILBERT LEANDER DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-4970
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL PAUL DEBNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-04-167)
Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Roberson, Columbia, South Carolina; W. James Hoffmeyer,
LAW OFFICE OF W. JAMES HOFFMEYER, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellants. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States Attorney,
Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gilbert Leander Davis, Jr., and Daniel Paul Debner appeal
from their sentences imposed pursuant to their guilty pleas to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of
cocaine. Appellants assert that the district court erred under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by sentencing them
for crack cocaine, because they did not admit to a conspiracy
involving crack cocaine. In addition, Davis asserts that his
firearm enhancement violated Booker.
We agree that there was Booker error. Appellants were
sentenced under the mandatory guideline scheme and received more
than the maximum sentence permitted by the facts admitted. See
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005).
However, because the district court imposed identical, alternative
sentences in the event that the guidelines were found to be
non-binding, any error was harmless. See United States v. Shatley,
448 F.3d 264, 266-67 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court followed
our recommendation in United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th
Cir.), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005); its alternative sentences
were within the range recommended by the sentencing guidelines, and
we take the district court at its word when it stated that it would
impose the same sentences under the advisory guideline system.
Shatley, 448 F.3d at 267-68.
- 3 -
Accordingly, we affirm Appellants’ sentences. 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 -