UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4352
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ESCOVIO RIOS, a/k/a Chavo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00025-MR-DLH-2)
Submitted: January 27, 2015 Decided: February 2, 2015
Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew B. Banzhoff, DEVEREUX & BANZHOFF, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Escovio Rios appeals the 151-month sentence imposed by
the district court following his conviction by a jury of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least fifty
grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). On appeal, Rios contends that, under
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), the district
court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by
engaging in judicial factfinding to determine the drug quantity
for which he was responsible in establishing the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range. Finding no error, we affirm.
Rios did not raise his sentencing claim in the
district court; thus, we review for plain error. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (detailing plain error
standard); see also Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121,
1126 (2013). In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held “that any fact
that increases the mandatory minimum is an element [of the
offense] that must be submitted to the jury.” 133 S. Ct. at
2155 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Alleyne Court made
clear, however, that its holding did not infringe on district
courts’ otherwise “broad sentencing discretion, informed by
judicial factfinding.” Id. at 2163; see United States v. Smith,
751 F.3d 107, 117 (3d Cir. 2014) (“Alleyne did not curtail a
2
sentencing court’s ability to find facts relevant in selecting a
sentence within the prescribed statutory range.”).
We conclude that the district court did not violate
Rios’ Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by engaging in
judicial factfinding at sentencing that did not affect the
applicable statutory mandatory minimum and maximum sentences.
See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (2012) (providing applicable
mandatory minimum and maximum sentences). We therefore affirm
the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3