UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7912
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SONJI PRINCE PABELLON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-98-1169-HMH)
Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 25, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sonji Prince Pabellon, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sonji Prince Pabellon appeals the district court’s text
orders denying her motion for modification of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) and her motion
for reconsideration. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Pabellon argues that the district court violated her due
process rights under the Fifth Amendment by rendering oral orders
or “text orders” rather than issuing an opinion and explaining why
her motions were denied. Based on our review of the record, we
find no evidence that Pabellon was prejudiced by the district
court’s decision to enter a text order and therefore find no Fifth
Amendment violation. Cf. Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d
272, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2004).
We also uphold the denial of Pabellon’s motion for
modification of sentence. Pabellon appears to base her motion on
the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.
296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and
argues that the Supreme Court has lowered the sentencing range
applicable to her case. This argument has been squarely rejected
by several of our sister circuits. See Carrington v. United
States, 470 F.3d 920, 923 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Rodriguez-Pena, 470 F.3d 431, 433 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v.
Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
- 2 -
2365 (2006); United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th
Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1643 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders
denying Pabellon’s motions for modification of sentence and her
motion for reconsideration. 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 -