United States of America v. Marie Josee Asmath, a/k/a Maria Joseph, a/k/a Marie J. Pierre, a/k/a Marie Pierre

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARIE JOSEE ASMATH, a/k/a Maria Joseph, a/k/a
Marie J. Pierre, a/k/a Marie Pierre,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-01-759)
Submitted: August 6, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David P. McCann, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert H. Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marie Josee Asmath appeals the sentence imposed after she
pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute
fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000). The district court concluded
that Asmath had previously been convicted of two crimes of
violence, and therefore qualified for an enhanced sentence as a
Career Offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1 (2001). On appeal,
Asmath contends that the evidence at sentencing was insufficient to
establish that she was in fact the person who was convicted of the
predicate crimes.
We review a district court’s resolution of factual questions
at sentencing under the clearly erroneous standard. United States
v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). A defendant is a
career offender if she was at least eighteen years old when the
instant offense was committed, the instant offense is a felony and
is either a crime of violence or a drug offense, and she has at
least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence or drug
offenses. See USSG § 4B1.1. Asmath does not dispute the first two
requirements, nor does she contest that the convictions in question
were felony convictions for crimes of violence. She argues that her
identity as the person who was convicted of those crimes was not

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sufficiently established to qualify her for an enhanced sentence.
Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did
not err in concluding that Asmath’s identity was adequately
established and that she was a career offender.
Accordingly, we affirm Asmath’s conviction and 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

-- 3 of 3 --