US v. Fields, No. 03-4645 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4645 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD LYNN FIELDS, Defendant - Appellant. On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. (S. Ct. No. 04-9114) Submitted: December 28, 2005 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, United States Attorney, Debra Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, L. Dwyer, Assistant United States for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. We previously affirmed Donald Lynn Fields convictions and sentence for two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). United States v. Fields, No. 03-4645 (4th Cir. Sept. 15, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated our decision and remanded Fields case for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). A Sixth Amendment error occurs when a district court imposes a sentence greater than the maximum permitted based on facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 756. Booker, 543 Because Fields did not raise a Sixth Amendment challenge or object to the mandatory application of the guidelines in the district court, review is for plain error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). The facts that are supported by the jury verdict are that Fields, a convicted felon, possessed a firearm and ammunition. Grouped together, these facts correspond with an offense level of twenty, see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) & 3D1.2(d)(2002), and a sentencing range of forty-one to fifty-one months imprisonment. A, table (based on Fields criminal - 2 - See USSG Ch. 5, Pt. history category of III (three)). range. Fields sentence of sixty-three months exceeds this Because this error affects Fields substantial rights, we conclude it is plainly erroneous. Accordingly, we See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 547-48. vacate the sentence imposed by the district court and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker. Although the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes clear that a sentencing court must still consult [the] sentencing. Guidelines and take 125 S. Ct. at 767. them into account when On remand, the district court should first determine the appropriate sentencing range under the guidelines, making determination. all along findings appropriate for that See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546 (applying Booker on plain error review). range factual with the The court should consider this sentencing other factors described in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), 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.A. § 3553(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). must be within the statutorily prescribed Id. range The sentence and . . . reasonable. Id. at 546-47. We affirm Fields convictions for the reasons stated in our prior opinion of September 15, 2004. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions - 3 - 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 - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
