UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6405
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS AUGUSTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. H. Brent McKnight,
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00208)
Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: September 13, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Augustin, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In 2003, Thomas Augustin entered a guilty plea to
possession of fifty grams or more of cocaine base (crack) and 500
grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000), and was sentenced to a term of 210
months imprisonment. Augustin appealed his sentence, and we
affirmed it. United States v. Augustin, 102 F. App’x 771 (4th Cir.
2004) (04-4061). The Supreme Court later vacated this court’s
judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On remand, we again
affirmed the sentence. United States v. Augustin, 157 F. App’x 582
(4th Cir. 2005) (04-4061).
Augustin subsequently filed in the district court a
“Notice of Application for a Certificate of Appealability,”
referencing the date of his 2003 sentencing hearing. The district
court construed the application as a notice of appeal from the
original judgment. Augustin has now filed an informal brief in
this court in which he challenges his conviction and sentence and
asserts that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Because
Augustin has previously appealed from the judgment entered on
January 12, 2004, this appeal is redundant.
We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -