Case ID: f-appx_185/html/0410-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon Darnell REYNOLDS, also known as Black, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-41227.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 21, 2006.
    Heather Harris Rattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Jose Alwin Stewart, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Brandon Darnell Reynolds appeals the 360-month sentence he received after the jury found him guilty of conspiracy to manufacture, distribute or possess with such intent, or dispense 50 grams or more of crack cocaine or 5 kilograms or more of a substance that contained cocaine. Because Reynolds was sentenced after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Reynolds’s argument that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and his Sixth Amendment rights when it sentenced him based on a drug amount found by a preponderance of the evidence and not on the drug amount found by the jury is unavailing. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir.2006). Reynolds’s argument that the remedial portion of Booker does not apply to him, because he committed his offense before Booker was decided, is likewise unavailing. See United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599 (5th Cir.2005).

Reynolds’s argument that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court followed the guidelines recommendation for offenses involving crack cocaine does not amount to plain error. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Fonts, 95 F.3d 372, 374 (5th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.