Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perry HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-08-27
Citations: 17 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 00-4887
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perry HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perry HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4887.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 31, 2001.
Decided Aug. 27, 2001.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, MD, for appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, United States Attorney, A. David Copperthite, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Perry Hamilton was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000), and sentenced to a term of fifty-one months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, alleging that the district court erred in counting his juvenile adjudications in his criminal history score under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(d)(2) (2000). We affirm.
Hamilton did not contest his criminal history calculation in the district court. On appeal, he argues for the first time that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its mandate and acted irrationally when it created USSG § 4A1.2(d)(2), which he contends violates the Equal Protection Clause. Because Hamilton failed to raise the issue he presents here in the district court, we review only for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (to afford relief for unpreserved error, reviewing court must find an error, which is plain, which affects substantial rights, and which seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings).
Guideline section 4A1.2(d)(2) provides that, for offenses committed before age eighteen, one criminal history point is added "under § 4Al.l(c) for each adult or juvenile sentence imposed within five years of the defendant's commencement of the instant offense not covered in (A)." Hamilton argues that § 4A1.2(d)(2) is unconstitutional because it automatically treats juvenile adjudications like adult sentences for criminal history purposes, although the juvenile justice system is based on principles and goals that are different from the adult justice system. He further contends that § 4A1.2(d)(2) violates equal protection in that juvenile adjudications are treated differently from military, foreign, or tribal sentences and civil adjudications. He also notes that incarcerations for treatment, such as insanity or mental disability, are not automatically counted for criminal history purposes.
Hamilton has not demonstrated that the district court plainly erred in accepting the criminal history calculation recommended in the presentence report. The sentencing guidelines as a whole have been held to be constitutional, Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 412, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989), and no court has held § 4A1.2(d)(2) to be invalid. That being so, any alleged error was not plain when Hamilton was sentenced.
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.
Subsection (A) provides that two criminal history points are added under § 4Al.l(b) for similar sentences of at least 60 days if the defendant was released from confinement within five years of his commencement of the instant offense.