Opinion ID: 51288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extra-verdict Enhancements

Text: Citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), Knight also argues that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when it enhanced his sentence based on drug quantities and type not alleged in the indictment.3 The district court resentenced Knight under the advisory guidelines. Knight’s 292-month sentence does not exceed his statutory maximum of life imprisonment. Therefore, the district court’s findings relating to drug quantity and 2 As noted earlier, a § 841(a) drug offense that involved 5 kilograms or more of cocaine is subject to a maximum life sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Therefore, Knight’s statutory maximum sentence – life imprisonment – was authorized by the amount and type of drugs charged in his indictment (more than 20 kilograms of cocaine) and found by the jury at trial (50 kilograms of cocaine). If anything, the district court’s having the jury determine the amount of crack cocaine used in the relevant conduct guidelines calculation afforded Knight more process than was required. 3 The government argues that, because Knight failed to raise his Booker argument at the resentencing hearing, we should review only for plain error. Knight argues that he is entitled to de novo review because he raised the Booker issue in a position statement filed at the district court’s instruction prior to the sentencing hearing. We need not resolve this issue because we find no reversible error under either standard of review. 9 type and the corresponding guidelines enhancements did not violate Knight’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. See United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2005); Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1301.