US v. Fabrice Snowden
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FABRICE SNOWDEN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00100-CCB)
July 22, 2008
July 30, 2008
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kwame J. Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Fabrice Snowden pled guilty to sexually exploiting his daughter for the purpose of producing child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2251(a) (West Supp. 2008). The district court imposed sentencing enhancements after making factual findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence and sentenced Snowden to a 360-month term of imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory guideline range. On appeal, Snowden contends that the district
court's use of the preponderance of the evidence standard to find that he intended to distribute child pornography and engaged in a pattern of prohibited conduct violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We reject his claim. See United States v.
Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 565-66 (3d Cir.) (en banc) (holding that "[t]he Due Process Clause . . . affords no right to have the facts [relevant to sentencing enhancements] cases proved beyond a
denied, 128 S. Ct. 106 (2007). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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 -
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?