Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rene ELLIS, a/k/a Nut, a/k/a Money, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4186.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 23, 2006.
    Decided: Sept. 29, 2006.
    James P. Craig, Craig Law Firm, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Rene Ellis appeals the sentence he received after this court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir.2005). On remand, the district court readopted its previous findings to determine the advisory guideline range, considered the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006), and imposed the same sentence. Ellis contends on appeal that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the district court made a factual finding to determine that he was an organizer of the offense, as it did at the original sentencing, which again resulted in a sentence enhancement based on the judge’s findings rather than a jury’s determination. However, because the district court sentenced Ellis under an advisory guideline scheme, no Sixth Amendment error occurred. See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546 (in post-Booker sentencing, district court should make all factual findings appropriate to determination of advisory guideline range).

We therefore affirm the district court’s amended judgment. 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.