United States v. Harris , 110 F. App'x 356 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •              Vacated by Supreme Court, February 28, 2005
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-4020
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES HOWARD HARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CR-03-192)
    Submitted:   October 7, 2004                 Decided:   October 13, 2004
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Walter L. Jones, CLIFFORD, CLENDENIN, O’HALE & JONES, LLP,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
    United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James Howard Harris appeals from the judgment of the
    district court convicting him of distribution of crack cocaine and
    possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and sentencing him to
    151 months of imprisonment.      Finding no error, we affirm.
    As his sole claim of error on appeal, Harris argues that
    the    district   court’s   application      of   the   federal   sentencing
    guidelines violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. We
    have   considered   this    argument   and   rejected    it.      See   United
    States v. Hammoud, ___ F.3d ___, 
    2004 WL 2005622
    , at *28 (4th Cir.
    Sept. 8, 2004) (No. 03-4253) (en banc); United States v. Hammoud,
    
    378 F.3d 426
     (4th Cir. 2004) (order), petition for cert. filed, ___
    U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Aug. 6, 2004) (No. 04-193).             Because Harris’
    sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence authorized
    by law, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), we find no
    error.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.   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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4020

Citation Numbers: 110 F. App'x 356

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Widener, Williams

Filed Date: 10/13/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023