Case ID: f-appx_133/html/0080-01.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. James Daniel BRAY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-4714.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 25, 2005.
    Decided: June 7, 2005.
    Andrew L. Wilder, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
    John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, 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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Following a jury trial, James Daniel Bray was convicted on two counts of coercion and enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2422(b) (West Supp.2005) (Counts 1 and 2), and one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) (Count 7). The court sentenced Bray to 204 months in prison, consisting of a 180-month sentence on Count 1, a 168-month sentence on Count 2 with all but twenty-four months to run concurrently, and a concurrent sixty-month sentence on Count 7. The district court also specified an identical alternative sentence of 204 months pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), cert. granted and judgment vacated, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).

Bray appeals, arguing that pursuant to United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because it was enhanced under the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines scheme based on facts that were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that, because the alternate sentence the district court pronounced pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), treating the sentencing guidelines as advisory only, was identical to the sentence imposed under the mandatory federal sen-fencing guidelines as they existed at that time, any error resulting from the sentence imposed by the district court was harmless. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 769.

Accordingly, we affirm Bray’s sentence. 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