Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dramane DIOMBERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-26
Citations: 46 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 01-4545
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dramane DIOMBERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dramane DIOMBERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4545.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 19, 2002.
Decided Sept. 26, 2002.
Michael P. O’Connell, Stirling, O’Connell & Pennington, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Deborah B. Barbi er, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Dramane Diombera appeals his 210 month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of over one kilogram of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Diombera claims his sentence is erroneous under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the district court refused to submit sentencing guideline factors to the jury, specifically the exact amount of heroin Diombera conspired to distribute, including any amount attributed to him by way of relevant conduct, and whether he played a leadership role in the conspiracy. We review questions of law regarding the application of the sentencing guidelines de novo. See United States v. Hudson, 272 F.3d 260, 263 (4th Cir.2001).
Diombera's arguments are meritless. First, his indictment included the element of the threshold drug quantity — more than one kilogram of heroin — necessary to trigger the statutory sentencing range of ten years to life. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)© (2000). Diombera's sentence thus did not exceed the statutory maximum. Moreover, his argument that sentencing enhancements under the sentencing guidelines must be submitted to the jury is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201-
02 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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.
Diombera does not challenge his conviction and twelve-month concurrent sentence for simple drug possession.