United States of America v. Andre Junior Covington

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRE JUNIOR COVINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-03-647)
Submitted: August 5, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Andre Junior Covington appeals his 420-month sentence
following his jury convictions for possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000);
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000); and possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.
Covington maintains that under Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296 (2004), the district court violated his Sixth Amendment
rights by declining to award him a sentencing reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. Because Covington did not raise this
objection at sentencing, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993).
The Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738, 746, 750 (2005), that the mandatory manner in which the
federal sentencing guidelines required courts to impose sentencing
enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance
of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. However, Booker does
not preclude judicial determinations of the applicability of
sentence reductions, such as for the acceptance of responsibility.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not commit
plain error in declining to award Covington a sentence reduction
for acceptance of responsibility and affirm the sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
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

-- 3 of 3 --