Case ID: f-appx_156/html/0673-01.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. Darwin Djuna LOWE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-60327.
    (Summary Calendar).
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 6, 2005.
    Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Gregory Layne Kennedy, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Mark Colette, Law Office of John Mark Colette, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Darwin Djuna Lowe appeals his sentence imposed following a plea of guilty to three counts of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Lowe contends that the district court erred in sentencing him based on facts not admitted by him or found by a jury. Lowe was sentenced, however, after the Supreme Court issued United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The transcript of the sentencing proceedings reveals that the parties debated the reasonableness of the sentence recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines and that the district court was aware of its ability to sentence outside of the Guidelines range. Contrary to Lowe’s contention, Booker requires the district court to determine the Guidelines range in the same manner as before Booker, including “finding all facts relevant to sentencing.” United, States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005). Whereas in this case the Guidelines were not applied in a mandatory fashion, such fact finding does not violate the Sixth Amendment. Id.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.