United States of America v. Issiah N. Grayson

The Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise, Senior District Judge, United States District*
Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-3533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ISSIAH N. GRAYSON,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. Crim. 03-cr-00250-7
District Judge: The Honorable Christopher C. Conner
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 9, 2006
Before: BARRY and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and DEBEVOISE, District Judge*
(Opinion Filed: January 27, 2006)
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

2
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Appellant Issiah Grayson pled guilty to a one count Information charging him with
Interstate Travel in Aid of Racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). Based on
its finding that Grayson possessed in excess of five grams of crack cocaine, the District
Court determined that the base offense level was 26 and that, after a downward
adjustment of two levels for acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level was 24.
Although the Sentencing Guidelines imprisonment range was 100 to 125 months given
Grayson’s criminal history category of VI, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment
was five years. The District Court sentenced Grayson to sixty months imprisonment.
Grayson challenges his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). In Booker, the Supreme Court held that mandatory enhancement of a maximum
sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines based on facts neither admitted by the
defendant nor found by a jury violates the Sixth Amendment. Grayson contends that his
sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because there was neither a jury finding nor an
admission regarding the quantity of drugs involved in his crime.
Grayson was sentenced before the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker. In United
States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc), we concluded that defendants
sentenced before Booker should have their sentencing challenge “remand[ed] for
consideration of the appropriate sentence by the District Court in the first instance.” Id. at
166. Thus, although we will affirm Grayson’s conviction, we will vacate his sentence

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker.

-- 3 of 3 --