UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JARROT A. COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:03-cr-00590-SB-1)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: September 28, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy J. Vitetta, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Robert H. Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jarrot A. Cooper appeals from his 360-month sentence
imposed following the jury verdict finding him guilty of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and conspiracy to
carry firearms during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes.
On appeal, Cooper contends that the district court improperly
calculated his guideline range based on acquitted conduct. We have
previously found that a sentencing court may increase a defendant’s
guideline range based on its factual findings, even if the jury
acquitted the defendant of that conduct. See United States v.
Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). Contrary to Cooper’s
contentions, the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not alter our previous holdings in this
regard. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 233 (stating that the Sentencing
Guidelines, if merely made advisory, would not violate the Sixth
Amendment); see also United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1304
(11th Cir.) (finding that “Booker does not suggest that the
consideration of acquitted conduct violates the Sixth Amendment as
long as the judge does not impose a sentence that exceeds what is
authorized by the jury verdict”), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 432
(2005). Accordingly, we affirm Cooper’s conviction. We grant
Cooper’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief but find the
arguments raised therein to be meritless. 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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -