T he Hon. D annyC

. R eev es, U ni t ed St at es D i st r i ct Judg e f ort he East er n Di st r i ct of Kent ucky , si t t i ng * b y d e s i g n a ti o n . NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 06a0856n .06 Fi led : N ovemb er 2 2, 20 06

05-2474 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. AMONT JEFFERSON, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURTF O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Be fore: D AU GH TR EY a nd M c KE AG U E, C i rc ui t J ud g es , an d R EE VE S, D i s tr ict * Judg e.
PERC UR IAM

. In t his se ntenc ing appeal , defendant AmontJe fferson cont ends that the d is tr ict c our

t v iol ated his Si xth A mendment r ig ht t o tr ial by j ur y w hen i t found facts that increase d his sent encin g range und er the United State s Sent encin g Guide lines. Beca use t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s cl a im is fo re c lo s e d b y t h e S u p r e m e Co u rt ’s d e c is io n in Un it e d S t a t e s v. Book er , 543 U .S. 220 ( 2005) , as w ell as our ow n c ase law

i nter preti ng Book er , we find no re v ersi ble er ro r and affirm.
After his f irst tr ial ended in a hung jur y , the defendant w as conv icted a t a sec ond t ri al of aiding and a bet ting a ba n kr o b b e ry, i n v iolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 113 (a), for his role in05-2474

United States v. J

efferson

- 2 - sc outi ng out a bank that was subs eq uentl y ro bbed. Beca use his or ig ina l se n te n ci ng hea ring w as held before the United State s Supre me Court release d its decision in Booke r,
w e remanded J efferson’ s c ase for resent enci ng . See U nit ed States v . J efferson, N o. 03
- 2 5 4 6 , 2 0 0 6 W L 13 8 6 4 7 1 , a t * 4 (Ju n e 3, 20 0 5 ). Atres e n t e n c in g, t h e di st ric t ju d ge cal cul ated Jefferson’ s g uid eli ne rang e, tre ated the gu ide li nes as adv is or y , and con si dered the rema ining statu tory facto rs, all in accord ance w ith Boo ker. In calculat ing Jef ferson ’s sent enci ng rang e, t he c our t found t hat t he defendant had offered per jured te sti mony

at tr ial and t herefore ap pli ed an enhanc ement for obstr uct ion of

just ic e in accordance w it h U SSG § 3C 1.2. On ap peal , t he defendant ack now led g es that the d is tr ict c our t compl ied w it h Book er and doe s n ot ch all eng e the procedu ra l or su bst anti v e reason abl eness of his se ntenc e. Ins tead, hi s s ole arg ument i s t hat d espi te B ooker , j udi ci al fa ct -f inding i n s entenc ing deter minat ion s v iol ates the Si xth A mendment, as arti cul ated in Bl akel y v . W ashi ng ton, 542 U. S. 2 96 ( 2004) , and , t herefore, that his Si xth A mendment r igh t was v iol ated w hen t he dis tr ict j udg e appl ied the obst ru cti on- of-j ust ic e enhanc ement based on th e j udg e’s findi ng that the d efendant had offered per jured te sti mony . The defendant’ s a rg ument i s forecl osed by the Supreme C our

t’ s h old ing i n Book er that non- mandator

y appli cat ion of

the g uid eli nes does not i mpli cat e the Si xth A mendment. See B ooker , 543 U .S. at 23 3. Indeed, i n it s re medial Book er opi nio n, w hic h ex ci sed the
ma nda tory language f rom the se nte ncing guide lines, the Co urt expressly in structe d district05-2474

United States v. J

efferson

- 3 - cour ts to c alc ula te t he g uid eli ne rang e as the firs t step in it s s entenc ing dete rmi nati on. See id. at 26 4. Since the Su prem e Court issue d its decisi o n i n B o o k er, w e ha v e repe ate dly held that Boo ker did not elimin ate judicial fact-f inding and thatsuch de term inatio ns, w ithin the c onfines of Book er , are c onst it uti onal

. See, e.g ., Uni ted S tates v . St one, 432 F .3d 6 51, 654- 55 ( 6th Ci r. 2005) (h old ing that dis tr ict cour t’ s fact findi ng w it h re g ard to an obs tr uct ion of jus ti ce enhanc ement di d notv iol ate t he Si xth A mendment an d s tati ng that “ Book er did not e li minat e j udi ci al fact- findi ng ”)

. For the foreg oin g reason , we A FFIRM the district cou rt’s senten cing order.