Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyle G. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-11
Citations: 1 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 00-4437
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyle G. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 196–196

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyle G. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2000.
Decided Jan. 11, 2001.
Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, WV, for appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Kyle G. Mitchell appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Mitchell contends that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), requires that his conviction and sentence be vacated. Because Mitchell's sentence of 135 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release does not exceed the twenty-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment or unspecified maximum term of supervised release set out in 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999) for the core offense without enhancement for drug quantity, we find that his sentence is permissible under Apprendi See United States v. Angle, 230 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir.), cert, denied'— U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm Mitchell'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.