United States of America v. Kristina M. Worstell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4709
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KRISTINA M. WORSTELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-01-144)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian A. Glasser, Eric B. Snyder, BAILEY & GLASSER, L.L.P.,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United
States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kristina Worstell appeals the 41-month sentence imposed after
a jury found her guilty of assaulting a postal employee, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2000). We affirm.
Worstell contends that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000) (holding any fact, other than prior conviction, that
increases criminal penalty beyond prescribed statutory maximum must
be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt), the
district court impermissibly subjected her to a higher sentencing
guidelines range upon a finding that the assault caused serious
bodily injury because that fact was not submitted to a jury and
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We have previously held
sentencing factors are not required to be alleged in the indictment
or submitted to the jury. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d
192, 202 (4th Cir. 2000). Worstell was sentenced within the
statutory maximum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) upon a jury
finding of bodily injury, and Apprendi does not apply.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Worstell’s sentence. 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 of 2 --