United States of America v. Ronnie Dale Broadwell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONNIE DALE BROADWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-296)
Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: July 18, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Louis Carr Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Thomas Norman
Cochran, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

1We note that although there was an appellate waiver in
Broadwell’s plea agreement, this case is distinguishable from our
recent decision in United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir.
2005), because the Government here has not sought to enforce the
waiver.
2Just as we noted in United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
545 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005), “[w]e of course offer no criticism of the
district judge, who followed the law and procedure in effect at the
time” of Broadwell’s sentencing.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Dale Broadwell pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) (2000) and being a felon in possession of ammunition in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). 1 Broadwell was
sentenced to sixty-eight months in prison. The district court also
specified an alternative sentence of forty-six to fifty-seven
months in prison under United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th
Cir. 2004), vacated, 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005). Broadwell appealed,
challenging only his sentence.
Broadwell now moves for remand of this case to the
district court for resentencing in light of United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The Government does not oppose
remand for the purposes of resentencing. Because the district
court applied the Guidelines as mandatory in sentencing Broadwell,
and because Broadwell objected in the district court, Broadwell’s
motion is well taken.2 Accordingly, although we affirm Broadwell’s

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
conviction, we grant the motion to remand for resentencing in light
of the Booker decision.
Although the sentencing guidelines are no longer
mandatory, Booker makes clear that a sentencing court must still
“consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when
sentencing.” 125 S. Ct. at 767. On remand, the district court
should first determine the appropriate sentencing range under the
guidelines, making all factual findings appropriate for that
determination. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th
Cir. 2005) (applying Booker on plain error review). The court
should consider this sentencing range along with the other factors
described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and then impose a
sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside the Guidelines
range, the court should explain its reasons for the departure as
required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (2000). Id. The sentence must
be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.”
Id. at 546-47. 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 IN PART; VACATED
AND REMANDED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --