UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4608
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER LEON FAISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-460)
Submitted: January 4, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2007
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG,* and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*
Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Leon Faison pled guilty to distributing “61.2
grams (net weight) of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine base (“crack”).” (J.A. 5). He
received a mandatory minimum ten-year sentence under 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). On appeal, Faison argues
that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
The Government bears the burden of proving the quantity
of drugs for which a defendant should be held accountable at
sentencing. See United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th
Cir. 1993). We find that the Government met its burden in Faison’s
case because he pled guilty, without reserving his right to
challenge the amount for sentencing purposes, to an indictment that
attributes a specific quantity of drugs to him. Id. Thus, we find
no error under Booker as Faison admitted to the relevant drug
amount by pleading guilty to the indictment in this case. Booker,
543 U.S. at 244.
Accordingly, we affirm Faison’s sentence. 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 -