Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04762/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reynold Gelin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANCILLON DEBREUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 06-4762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REYNOLD GELIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH)

Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 06-4762 Doc: 84 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 6
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon S. Long, Gary G. Grindler, Tiffany R. Benjamin, KING &

SPALDING, LLP, Washington, D.C.; David B. Betts, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellants. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States

Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney,

Florence, South Carolina; Thomas E. Booth, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4762 Doc: 84 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 6
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Francillon Debreus and Reynold Gelin appeal their

sentences imposed by the district court upon remand for

resentencing consistent with the rules announced in United

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

401 F.3d 540, 546-60 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Gelin,

No. 04-4486, 2006 WL 521745 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2006) (unpublished);

United States v. Debreus, No. 04-4517, 2005 WL 1822432 (4th Cir.

Aug. 3, 2005) (unpublished). The district court was instructed to

first determine the appropriate sentencing range under the

guidelines and make all factual findings appropriate for that

determination. The court was then instructed to consider this

sentencing range along with the other factors described in 18

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and then impose a

sentence. The court ordered Debreus be sentenced to life

imprisonment, as the court had ordered during the initial

sentencing procedure. The sentence was within the guidelines.

With respect to Gelin, the court accepted an argument concerning

the enhancement for Gelin’s role in the offense, lowered by two

levels Gelin’s offense level and sentenced him to 262 months’

imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

Debreus contends his life sentence is so severe, the

evidence supporting the enhancements must be proven to a jury

Appeal: 06-4762 Doc: 84 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 3 of 6
- 4 -

beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, he claims his sentence

violates the Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

This court will affirm a sentence if it “is within the

statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.” United States v.

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

2054 (2006). A sentence that falls within the properly calculated

advisory guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th

Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69

(2007) (upholding application of presumption of reasonableness to

within-guidelines sentence). 

We find there is no support for Debreus’ argument.

Because the sentence was based upon the properly calculated

guidelines range of imprisonment and the district court was aware

the guidelines were advisory and imposed sentence after considering

the § 3553(a) factors, we find it reasonable.

Gelin argues that the enhancements to his offense level

were based upon testimonial hearsay not subject to crossexamination in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36

(2004). He further claims his Fifth Amendment right to due process

was violated because the hearsay did not have the indicia of

reliability. 

In Crawford, the Supreme Court held that the

Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission at trial of

Appeal: 06-4762 Doc: 84 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 4 of 6
- 5 -

testimonial statements that are not subject to cross-examination.

Id. at 50-51. None of the courts to have considered the effect of

Crawford post-Booker have concluded that the rule announced in

Crawford applies at sentencing. See United States v. Katzopoulos,

437 F.3d 569, 576 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Though the cases may be a broad

signal of the future, there is nothing specific in Blakely, Booker,

or Crawford that would cause this Court to reverse its long-settled

rule of law that [the] Confrontation Clause permits the admission

of testimonial hearsay at sentencing proceedings.”); United

States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005) (same); United

States v. Luciano, 414 F.3d 174, 179 (1st Cir. 2005) (same); United

States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2005) (same).

Accordingly, we find Gelin’s Crawford argument without merit. 

With respect to Gelin’s Fifth Amendment argument, the

sentencing court may consider any relevant information, including

hearsay evidence, provided that the information has “sufficient

indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” See

United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1021 (4th Cir. 1992); see

also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 6A1.3(a) (2003). We find

there was no error when the court considered statements in the PSR

from persons who purchased crack cocaine from Gelin. The

statements were reasonably reliable. Gelin fails to show how the

Appeal: 06-4762 Doc: 84 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 5 of 6
- 6 -

statements were not reliable. Accordingly, Gelin’s Fifth Amendment

rights were not violated.

We affirm Debreus’ and Gelin’s sentences. 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: 06-4762 Doc: 84 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 6 of 6