UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 98-4532

LUDENCE ALFORD TURNBULL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

(S. Ct. No. 00-345)

Submitted: November 30, 2001

Decided: December 18, 2001

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and

MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Stanley E. Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia; Doulgas C.

McNabb, Houston, Texas, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United

States Attorney, Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States

Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court for

further consideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466, 490 (2000) (holding that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved

beyond a reasonable doubt"). The Court decided Apprendi after a jury

convicted Ludence Turnbull of conspiracy to import cocaine and

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963(b) (1994); conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846 (1994); conspiracy to

launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (1994); money

laundering (six counts), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)

(1994); and importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952,

960 (1994). The district court sentenced Turnbull to concurrent 400-

month sentences on each of the drug conspiracy counts, concurrent

240-month sentences on each of the money laundering counts, and

360 months on the importation count, and we affirmed his convictions

and sentences. United States v. Turnbull, No. 98-4532, 2000 WL

524800 (4th Cir. May 2, 2000) (unpublished), vacated, 531 U.S. 1033

(2001). After reviewing his convictions and sentences for plain error

in light of Apprendi, we affirm.1See United States v. Promise, 255

F.3d 150, 154 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (discussing plain error standard of review), petition for cert. filed, Sept. 20, 2001 (No. 01-6398).

In Promise, we applied Apprendi to drug offenses in §§ 841 and

846 and held that "the specific threshold [drug] quantity must be

treated as an element of an aggravated drug trafficking offense, i.e.,

charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable

doubt." Id. at 156-57 (footnotes omitted). However, in the case of

multiple counts of conviction, the guidelines instruct that if the total

punishment mandated by the guidelines exceeds the highest statutory

maximum, the district court must impose consecutive terms of imprisonment to the extent necessary to achieve the total punishment. See

1Because Apprendi does not affect the reasoning in our prior opinion

in this case, we adhere to that decision. 

2 UNITED STATES v. TURNBULL
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(d) (2000). Therefore, the

district court was obligated to impose consecutive sentences on Turnbull’s various convictions until it reached the total punishment of one

hundred years. United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 542-43 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S. Ct. 2235 (2001). See also

United States v. Roberts, 262 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that

if the result of White "stacking" yields the functional equivalent of a

life sentence, defendant cannot demonstrate plain error). Consequently, Turnbull cannot show that his 400-month sentence was "longer than that to which he would otherwise be subject." White, 238

F.3d at 542. We therefore find no plain error under Apprendi. Nor do

we find plain error in the district court’s application of the enhancement for being a leader or organizer, USSG § 3B1.1(a) (2000), which

Turnbull alleges violates Apprendi. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d

192, 200-01 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that Apprendi does not apply to

judge’s exercise of sentencing discretion within statutory range, so

long as defendant’s sentence is not set beyond maximum term specified in substantive statute), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S. Ct.

1393 (2001). 

Accordingly, we affirm Turnbull’s convictions and sentences.2 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

2We deny Turnbull’s motion to hold his appeal in abeyance pending

a decision on the petition for a writ of certiorari in United States v. Promise. 

UNITED STATES v. TURNBULL 3