Scribd
Upload
56 views5 pages

Unpublished

1) Joseph Camara was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and make counterfeit checks. He was sentenced to 10 months incarceration. 2) Camara argued his sentence violated Booker because judicial factfinding increased his offense level. The court rejected this, finding his advisory guidelines sentence was reasonable. 3) Camara argued his sentence was unfairly longer than co-conspirators, but the court found his trial sentence reasonable compared to co-defendants who pled guilty. 4) The court also found Camara's offense level and guideline range of 10-16 months did not overstate the seriousness of his offense. His sentence was accordingly affirmed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
56 views5 pages

Unpublished

1) Joseph Camara was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and make counterfeit checks. He was sentenced to 10 months incarceration. 2) Camara argued his sentence violated Booker because judicial factfinding increased his offense level. The court rejected this, finding his advisory guidelines sentence was reasonable. 3) Camara argued his sentence was unfairly longer than co-conspirators, but the court found his trial sentence reasonable compared to co-defendants who pled guilty. 4) The court also found Camara's offense level and guideline range of 10-16 months did not overstate the seriousness of his offense. His sentence was accordingly affirmed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH CAMARA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (CR-03-209)
Submitted:

December 22, 2005

Decided:

February 1, 2006

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Camille M. Davidson, THE FULLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Matthew T. Martens, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Joseph Camara was convicted on
one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to make, utter,
and possess counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371
(2000).

The

incarceration:
home detention.

district

court

sentenced

him

to

ten

months

five months in prison followed by five months of


Camara timely appeals his sentence.

Camara was involved in a conspiracy in which a $50,000


counterfeit check was deposited in a bank account and the coconspirators attempted to withdraw funds from the account based on
the

falsely

created

account

balance.

The

bank

quickly

took

remedial action and the actual loss it suffered was $9615.


Pursuant

to

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

2B1.1(a)(2) (2004), Camaras base offense level for violating 18


U.S.C. 371 was 6.

The district court increased Camaras offense

level by six levels under USSG 2B1.1(D), finding that the loss
exceeded $30,000.

With an offense level of 12 and placement in

Criminal History Category I, Camaras guideline range was ten to


sixteen months incarceration.
Table).

USSG Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing

The district court sentenced Camara to the bottom of the

guideline range, imposing five months in prison followed by five


months of home detention.
Camara first argues on appeal that his sentence violates
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),
because the district court increased his offense level based on
facts that had not been found by the jury, namely the amount of
- 2 -

loss.

In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory manner

in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts to


impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by
a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment.

543

U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 746, 750 (Stevens, J., opinion of the
Court).

The

Court

remedied

the

constitutional

violation

by

severing two statutory provisions, 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(b)(1) (West


Supp. 2005) (requiring sentencing courts to impose a sentence
within the applicable guideline range), and 18 U.S.C.A. 3742(e)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2005) (setting forth appellate standards of
review

for

advisory.

guideline

issues),

thereby

making

the

guidelines

United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.

2005) (citing Booker, 543 U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 756-67


(Breyer, J., opinion of the Court)).

After Booker, courts must

calculate the appropriate 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. 2005), and impose a sentence.
If a district court imposes a sentence outside the guideline range,
the court must state its reasons for doing so.
546.

Hughes, 401 F.3d at

The district court sentenced Camara within these parameters

and we conclude that the fact that his sentence was based on
judicial factfinding did not violate Booker.
Next, Camara argues that the district court erred by
imposing a sentence that was greater than those of other codefendants who were more culpable.

We find no merit in this claim.

- 3 -

After calculating the appropriate guideline range, a


district court must consider, in imposing a sentence, the relevant
factors under 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a), including the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records

who

3553(a)(6).

have

been

found

guilty

of

similar

conduct.

We will affirm the sentence imposed as long as it is

within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. Hughes,


401 F.3d at 546-47.

Here, the court determined that a sentence at

the bottom of the applicable guideline range was appropriate for


Camara, despite the lesser sentences imposed on his co-defendants.
We conclude that Camaras sentence is reasonable, particularly in
view of the fact that the two co-defendants Camara mentions who
received lesser sentences pled guilty, whereas Camara elected to
proceed to trial.

Cf. United States v. Brainard, 745 F.2d 320, 324

(4th Cir. 1984) (The single fact of a disparity in sentences


between a defendant who stands trial and a co-defendant who pleads
guilty does not require appellate reversal . . . .).
Finally, Camara contends that the district court erred by
failing to depart downward on the ground that the use of intended
loss, rather than actual loss, overstated the seriousness of his
offense. Camara does not dispute the district courts finding that
the intended loss, based on the counterfeit check, was $50,000. We
find that Camaras offense level of twelve, based on the $50,000
intended loss and resulting in a guideline range of ten to sixteen
months imprisonment, did not overstate the seriousness of his
offense.
- 4 -

For these reasons, we affirm Camaras 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

- 5 -

You might also like