Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George L. CRAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-27
Citations: 194 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 05-16430
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George L. CRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George L. CRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-16430
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 27, 2006.
Ray Chandlar Smith, Richmond Hill, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Amy Lee Copeland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George L. Cray appeals his 125-month sentence for distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(B). Cray argues that, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 765, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court erred by sentencing him based upon drug weights from transactions that were part of dismissed counts in the indictment.
We review the drug quantity attributable to a defendant found by the district court for clear error. United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355, 1357 (11th Cir. 1998). 'When a defendant objects to a factual finding that is used in calculating his guideline sentence, such as drug amount, the government bears the burden of establishing the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence." United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1127, 125 S.Ct. 2935, 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005).
The Supreme Court, in Booker, concluded that the Sentencing Guidelines violate the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury to the extent that they permit a judge, under a mandatory system, to increase a defendant's sentence based on facts that were neither found by a jury, nor admitted by the defendant. Booker, 543 U.S. at 244, 125 S.Ct. at 756. We have found, post-Booker, no constitutional defect with the sentencing judge finding the amount of drugs, even though it increased the length of the sentence. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1300. (holding, "[the] reason we know that the use of extra-verdict enhancements in a non-mandatory guidelines system is not unconstitutional is that . [Booker ] specifically provides for extra-verdict enhancements in all future sentencing____ The same extra-verdict enhancement provisions apply after Booker as before.").
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties' briefs, we discern no reversible error. Because there was sufficient reliable evidence for the district court to find that Cray was responsible for 205 grams of cocaine, and we repeatedly have held that extra-verdict enhancements are proper in an advisory system after Booker, the district court did not clearly err in using that drug amount to determine Cray's base offense level.
AFFIRMED.