Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04852/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04852-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Goode
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4852

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES E. GOODE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:06-cr-00262)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 23, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4852 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

Goode’s offense was committed in October 2003. The 2002

Guidelines Manual was applied to avoid ex post facto issues.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James E. Goode pled guilty to receipt of child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (2000), and was

sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of five years imprisonment.

The court also imposed a ten-year term of supervised release. See

18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(k) (West Supp. 2007). Goode appeals his

sentence on the ground that the advisory guideline range was

incorrectly calculated. We affirm.

The district court adopted the guideline calculation set

out in the presentence report, overruling Goode’s objections and

finding that the guideline range would have been 37-46 months, but

was increased to the statutory minimum term of 60 months under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b) (2002).* Goode does not

dispute that he was subject to the 60-month minimum term or that

the guideline range was 60 months pursuant to § 5G1.2(b). He

contends that the court should have applied USSG § 2G2.4

(possession of child pornography) instead of § 2G2.2 (trafficking

in child pornography), and erred in making an enhancement for

distribution under subsection (b)(2)(E). Both issues pertain only

to the initial computation of the guideline range before the

application of § 5G1.1(b). We conclude that the district court

correctly determined that Goode’s guideline range was 60 months and

Appeal: 07-4852 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

sentenced him accordingly.

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: 07-4852 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 3 of 3