Shawndale Jamison appeals his sentence on the ground that it violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. Since Jamison had fair warning of the possible penalties for his actions, we find that his sentence passes muster under ex post facto and due process principles and affirm.
*539 Background
In 2004, Jamison was indicted on four counts of distributing cocaine base. He pled guilty to count one of the indictment and admitted that his total offense conduct was at least two grams, but less than three grams of cocaine base. The probation officer summarized Jamison’s relevant conduct and concluded that he was responsible for 3.8 grams of cocaine base. This elevated figure included an amount from a June 22, 2004 cocaine sale in which Jami-son denies that he participated.
The district court determined that the Sentencing Guidelines could not be constitutionally applied in this case, given that Jamison did not stipulate to all the facts supporting the increased drug amount, and sentenced Jamison to 38 months in prison, treating the Guidelines as advisory. The court then imposed an alternative sentence, in the event that the Guidelines were found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, also of 38 months imprisonment.
Discussion
In
United States v. Booker,
— U.S. —,
Our analysis of Jamison’s claim is controlled by
Rogers v. Tennessee,
Jamison knew that he was committing a crime at the time he distributed cocaine base. The new judicial interpretation of the law brought about by
Booker
affects his punishment, not whether his conduct was innocent. Distributing cocaine base was not made a crime by the Court’s decision in
Booker.
Jamison also had fan-warning that distributing cocaine base was punishable by a prison term of up to twenty years, as spelled out in the United States Code. Jamison had sufficient warning of the possible consequences of his actions, and his sentence does not run afoul of any of the core concepts discussed in
Rogers.
We therefore join the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting an
ex post facto
claim based on the remedial holding in
Booker. See United States v. Scroggins,
*540 Conclusion
The sentence imposed by the district court does not violate the ex post facto or due process clauses of the Constitution and is AFFIRMED.
