UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SEAN THOMAS SULLIVAN, a/k/a Rico,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-5206
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH ADRIAN CAMPBELL, a/k/a Kac, a/k/a
Kenny,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:00-cr-00263-SB-6; 9:00-cr-00263-SB-4)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 22, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael P. O’Connell, STIRLING & O’CONNELL, P.A., Charleston, South
Carolina; Rosemary C. Scapicchio, Boston, Massachusetts, for
Appellants. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Nancy C.
Wicker, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Robert H. Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In United States v. Sullivan, 455 F.3d 248, 251 (4th Cir.
2006), this court affirmed the convictions for Appellants Sean
Thomas Sullivan and Kenneth Adrian Campbell, but vacated the
sentences and remanded for resentencing consistent with the rules
announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). At
their initial sentencing, both Appellants received life sentences,
as was called for under the then mandatory sentencing guidelines.
On remand, the district court made it clear it knew the guidelines
were advisory and that it should consult the statutory sentencing
factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
After hearing arguments from counsel, the court made no change with
respect to the sentencing guidelines, considered the § 3553(a)
factors, and sentenced Campbell to life imprisonment and Sullivan
to a variant sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment. We affirm.
We reject the Appellants’ claim that the presumption of
reasonableness this court uses to review sentences within the
properly calculated guidelines range makes the guidelines
mandatory. It is obvious from the record that the district court
did not treat the guidelines as mandatory. We also find no error
with respect to the court’s decision to make any factual findings
by a preponderance of the evidence. The court did not err
considering hearsay testimony at sentencing. The rule announced in
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), does not apply at
- 3 -
sentencing. See United States v. Katzopoulos, 437 F.3d 569, 576
(6th Cir. 2006) (“Though the cases may be a broad signal of the
future, there is nothing specific in Blakely, Booker or Crawford
that would cause this Court to reverse its long-settled rule of law
that [the] Confrontation Clause permits the admission of
testimonial hearsay evidence at sentencing proceedings.”). We also
find no error in the court’s decision to consider drug quantities
in reaching the range of imprisonment under the guidelines.
We further find no error in sentencing Campbell and
Sullivan as crack cocaine dealers instead of merely cocaine
dealers. The jury determined the Appellants were involved in a
crack conspiracy. In addition, we find there was no error in
considering Campbell’s prior convictions and determining he was a
career offender. Campbell was not sentenced as a career offender,
so any error, if there was one, did not prejudice him.
Finally, we review sentences for reasonableness. Booker,
543 U.S. at 261; United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456-57 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). We find the sentences
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentences. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 4 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -