Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. JUDKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-24
Citations: 9 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 00-4804
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. JUDKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 9
Pages: 226–228

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. JUDKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4804.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 30, 2001.
Decided May 24, 2001.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, SC, for appellant.
J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, SC, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Michael A. Judkins pled guilty to one count of possessing child pornography and one count of receiving child pornography. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (a)(5)(B) (West 2000). He appeals his sentence. We affirm.
We find first that the sentencing enhancements Judkins received under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2 (1998) were not barred by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), simply because the conduct on which they were based was not charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Judkins' sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum sentences of fifteen years and five years, respectively, for either of his offenses. Under Apprendi, the district court retains discretion to engage in fact-finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, with respect to factors that affect application of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 215, 218-19 (4th Cir.2000), petition for cert, filed, Apr. 17, 2001 (No. 00-1605); United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 198-202 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001). We further find no error in the enhancement for an offense involving use of a computer for transmission of the material where the defendant received, but did not send, child pornography. USSG § 2G2.2(b)(5). See United States v. Richardson, 238 F.3d 837, 841 (7th Cir.2001).
We therefore affirm the sentence. 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.