Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04914/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04914-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Singleton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4914

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY SINGLETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:02-cr-00170-RDB)

Submitted: April 4, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra L. Dwyer,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4914 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/16/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Singleton was convicted by a jury of drug

trafficking, possession of a firearm in relation to drug

trafficking, and possession of a firearm while a felon, and

sentenced to 248 months imprisonment. Singleton appealed,

challenging the district court’s denial of his suppression motion,

its admission into evidence of several documents, and the sentence

imposed. We rejected the first two claims, affirming Singleton’s

conviction, but vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent

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

States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). See United

States v. Singleton, 441 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Singleton I”).

On remand, the district court sentenced Singleton to 195

months imprisonment. He noted a timely appeal. In his brief,

Singleton raises the same two challenges to his conviction that

were raised and rejected in his first appeal; namely, that the

district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in

admitting into evidence certain phone records.

In Singleton I, we rejected the claims Singleton now

seeks to raise in this appeal. We find that Singleton’s claims are

barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and that none of the

exceptions apply. See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661

(4th Cir. 1999) (discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); see

also Invention Submission Corp. v. Dudas, 413 F.3d 411, 414-15 (4th

Appeal: 06-4914 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/16/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

Cir. 2005) (discussing mandate rule). Accordingly, we affirm

Singleton’s conviction.

Singleton has also filed a motion to file a supplemental

brief challenging the reasonableness of his sentence in light of

Amendment 706 to the guidelines, which lowered the base offense

level for drug offenses involving crack cocaine. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2D1.1 (2007); USSG App. C.

Amend. 706. This amendment has been made retroactive, effective

March 3, 2008. See USSG § 1B1.10(c) (Mar. 3, 2008). Although we

grant Singleton’s motion to file a supplemental brief, we deny the

relief sought therein.

We have recently held that it is for the district court

to first assess whether and to what extent a criminal defendant’s

sentence may be affected by Amendment 706, either sua sponte or by

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v.

Brewer, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 733395 (4th Cir. Mar. 20, 2008).

Accordingly, we deny Singleton’s request for resentencing without

prejudice to his right to pursue relief in 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: 06-4914 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/16/2008 Pg: 3 of 3