UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4915
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUSSELL LEE EBERSOLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-03-112)
Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: July 13, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory E. Stambaugh, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY E. STAMBAUGH,
Manassas, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States
Attorney, Thomas H. McQuillan, Robert C. Erickson, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Russell Lee Ebersole was convicted on twenty-five counts
of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp.
2006), and two counts of presenting false claims to the government,
in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2000). The district court
originally imposed a total sentence of seventy-eight months in
prison: eighteen months on one of the wire fraud counts and a
consecutive sixty months on the remaining twenty-six counts.
Ebersole appealed his convictions and sentence. We affirmed
Ebersole’s convictions, but vacated his sentence and remanded for
resentencing, concluding that, pursuant to United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), Ebersole’s sentence violated the Sixth
Amendment, and that the sentence enhancement for abuse of a
position of trust was improper “in the present circumstances.”
United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 534 (4th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 1142 (2006).
Upon remand, the district court sentenced Ebersole to a
total of sixty-three months in prison: concurrent sixty month
terms on the wire fraud counts and concurrent three-month terms on
the false claims counts to be served consecutively to the wire
fraud counts. Ebersole timely appealed.
Ebersole argues that his sentence following Booker
violates his due process rights, as informed by ex post facto
principles. This claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in
United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2006).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Ebersole’s sentence. We deny
Ebersole’s motions to remand or to file a supplemental brief. 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 -