UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RENE ELLIS, a/k/a Nut, a/k/a Money,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:01-1024-CMC-7)
Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 29, 2006
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Craig, CRAIG LAW FIRM, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Marshall
Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rene Ellis appeals the sentence he received after this
court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing in light
of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). On remand, the
district court readopted its previous findings to determine the
advisory guideline range, considered the factors set out in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and imposed the same
sentence. Ellis contends on appeal that his sentence was imposed
in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the district court made
a factual finding to determine that he was an organizer of the
offense, as it did at the original sentencing, which again resulted
in a sentence enhancement based on the judge’s findings rather than
a jury’s determination. However, because the district court
sentenced Ellis under an advisory guideline scheme, no Sixth
Amendment error occurred. See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546 (in post-
Booker sentencing, district court should make all factual findings
appropriate to determination of advisory guideline range).
We therefore affirm the district court’s amended
judgment. 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
- 2 -