US v. Gibson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONYA S. GIBSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00126-5)
Submitted: December 21, 2006
December 29, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Tinney, Jr., THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, Miller A. Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Tonya S. Gibson pled guilty to aiding and abetting money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(I) (2000), and was sentenced to a term of sixty-six months imprisonment. Gibson appeals her
sentence, alleging that the district court's consideration of facts she did not admit in determining her base offense level and a twolevel enhancement for sophisticated money laundering under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2S1.1(b)(3) (2005), violated the Sixth Amendment, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because Gibson did not raise this issue below, we review United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37
it for plain error. (1993). We affirm.
Gibson was sentenced in June 2006 under the advisory guideline system mandated by Booker. After Booker, courts must
calculate the appropriate advisory guideline range, consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and impose a sentence. Cir. 2005). United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th
To determine the advisory guideline range, the court
must consider relevant conduct. See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006) ("[T]he court must of correctly fact, the
applicable guideline range."); see also United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2005) (in advisory guideline system,
- 2 -
admissions); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 747 (5th Cir. 2005) (court may calculate advisory guideline range based on facts neither admitted by defendant nor found by jury beyond reasonable doubt). Therefore, we discern no error, much less plain error, in
the district court's consideration of Gibson's relevant conduct. Accordingly, district court. we affirm the sentence imposed by the
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 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?