Opinion ID: 178783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Obstruction and Firearm Enhancements

Text: Jacobs, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), claims that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the district court did not find the facts underlying the enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that he is mistaken. 4 First, Jacobs specifically withdrew his objections to his obstruction of justice enhancement at sentencing. In addition, he did not object in district court to the enhancement for possessing a stolen firearm. Accordingly, these claims are not preserved for appeal and are reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 218-20 (4th Cir. 2005). Under the plain error test, a defendant must show that (1) error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732. Even when these conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to notice the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). First, it is clear that Jacobs misreads Apprendi and Booker. Contrary to Jacobs’s claim that those cases require a district court to find facts that will enhance a sentence beyond a reasonable doubt, Apprendi actually holds that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490. Here, Jacobs was not subjected to an enhanced penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. Thus, Apprendi 5 and Booker do not apply (except to the extent that Booker makes the Guidelines advisory on the sentencing court). In any event, the district court properly imposed sentencing enhancements for possession of a firearm and obstructing justice. The facts underlying both enhancements were set forth in Jacobs’s presentence report and in adopting those factual findings, the district court did not err, let alone plainly so.