Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04278/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04278-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn Andre Alston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHAWN ANDRE ALSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00200-D)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4278 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Andre Alston pled guilty to possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was

sentenced to a term of 120 months imprisonment. Alston appeals his

sentence, arguing that the district court erred in applying the

cross reference in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) (2006). He maintains that (1) the cross reference

does not apply to completed crimes; (2) application of the cross

reference in his case violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights

under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and (3)

application of the cross reference in his case constitutes an

unconstitutional delegation of executive and Congressional power.

Although Alston contested the application of the cross reference in

the district court, he did not contest it on the first and last

grounds he raises here. We therefore review these issues for plain

error, United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993)

(unpreserved error may be corrected only if error occurred, that

was plain, and that affects substantial rights, and if failure to

correct error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of judicial proceedings). We conclude that he

has not identified any reversible error, and affirm.

In the presentence report, the probation officer

recommended that Alston’s offense level be calculated pursuant to

§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross referenced to USSG § 2X1.1, which increased

Appeal: 07-4278 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
*In this appeal, Alston does not contest the district court’s

factual finding that he possessed a firearm in connection with drug

trafficking.

- 3 -

his offense level under USSG § 2D1.1 for possession of a firearm in

connection with drug trafficking. At his sentencing hearing,

Alston objected unsuccessfully to application of the cross

reference and consideration of information provided by the

confidential informant on the grounds that these facts were not

charged in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.*

On appeal, Alston first contends that the cross reference

was wrongly applied because the district court found that he had

committed a completed offense (drug trafficking) and, therefore,

§ 2X1.1 could not apply because it addresses conspiracies,

attempts, and solicitations. He relies on dicta in United States

v. Bellamy, 264 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2001), which is inapposite. We

conclude the district court did not plainly err in applying

§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A).

Alston’s contention of Fifth and Sixth Amendment error

under Apprendi and Booker is also unavailing. After Booker, the

sentencing court still must calculate the applicable guideline

range after making the appropriate findings of fact. United States

v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2054 (2006). Alston argues that his case is an exception, but

provides no convincing support for his position. Nor did the court

err by using the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof.

Appeal: 07-4278 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005)

(holding that, after Booker, judges will continue to make decisions

about sentencing factors by preponderance of evidence without

violating Sixth Amendment), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 121 (2006).

Last, Alston maintains that application of the cross

reference in his case unconstitutionally transferred executive and

Congressional powers to the judiciary. This claim is contrary to

the Supreme Court’s holdings in Mistretta v. United States, 488

U.S. 361, 412 (1989), that “in creating the Sentencing Commission

. . . Congress neither delegated excessive legislative power nor

upset the constitutionally mandated balance of powers among the

coordinate Branches.” See also Booker, 543 U.S. at 243 (“Nothing

in our holding today is inconsistent with our decision in

Mistretta.”). 

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court. 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

Appeal: 07-4278 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 4 of 4