Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-11
Citations: 127 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: No. 04-4858
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo MARTINEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 107–107

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo MARTINEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-4858.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 11, 2005.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before: LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ricardo Martinez pled guilty to illegal reentry following conviction for an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). The district court sentenced Martinez to sixty months imprisonment. The district court also specified an identical alternative sentence of sixty months pursuant to this court's recommendation in United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), cert, granted and judgment vacated, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
Martinez appealed, challenging the sixteen-level judicial enhancement applied at sentencing, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, - U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We conclude that, because the alternative sentence pronounced by the district court was identical to the mandatory sentence imposed under the federal sentencing guidelines as they existed at that time, any error resulting from the sentence imposed by the district court was harmless. See United States v. Booker, -U.S.-,-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 769, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Accordingly, we affirm Martinez's conviction and 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