Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymont David BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-11
Citations: 194 F. App'x 136
Docket Number: No. 05-4955
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raymont David BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raymont David BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-4955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 11, 2006.
Derrick W. Lefler, Gibson, Lefler & Associates, Princeton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Raymont David Brown pled guilty to distribution of a quantity of cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Brown appealed the district court's original sentence of 137 months in prison. We vacated Brown's sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding that, under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Brown's sentence violated the Sixth Amendment.
Upon remand, the district court sentenced Brown to 115 months in prison, based on the original guideline calculation as modified to reflect a two-level reduction in offense level granted pursuant to the government's post-remand Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion for a reduction in sentence. Brown timely appealed.
Brown argues that his sentence following Booker violates his due process rights, as informed by ex post facto principles. This claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366 (4th Cir.2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Brown's sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED