United States v. Howell ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-7-2008
USA v. Howell
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1688
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Howell" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1635.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1635
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 04-1688 and 05-5164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CORDELL HOWELL
a/k/a Cardell Howell
Cordell Howell,
Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00003)
District Judge: Honorable Joy F. Conti
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 31, 2008
Before: RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK, *District Judge.
(Filed: February 7, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT
*Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Cordell Howell appeals his sentence of 235 months’ imprisonment following a
plea of guilty to possession with the intent to distribute 5 or more grams of cocaine base
(“crack”) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). For the reasons
that follow, we will affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court.
The only argument Howell makes is that the District Court erred by increasing
defendant’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice based on facts
proven by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. This
argument is foreclosed by this Court’s decision in United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556,
568 (3d Cir. 2007). In Grier, this Court held that the proper standard of proof for facts
relevant to enhancements under the advisory Guidelines regime was a preponderance of
the evidence. Id. Therefore, Howell’s argument fails.
We will affirm the sentence imposed in the Judgment and Commitment Order of
the District Court.
2