Pierce
United States v. Pierce
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Rickey Lane Pierce appeals the 63-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea conviction for five counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.
Pierce’s first contention is that the district court’s determination of loss for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2Fl.l(b)(l)(P) violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Reviewing de novo, United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 1005 (9th Cir.2002), we conclude that this contention is without merit.
Pierce’s 63-month sentence does not exceed the 5-year statutory maximum for his multiple counts of conviction because the district court properly stacked his sentences. See United States v. Scarano, 76 F.3d 1471, 1476 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). Where a defendant’s actual sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense to which he pleaded guilty, Apprendi is not implicated. See United States v. Scheele, 231 F.3d 492 , 497 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 234 F.3d 483, 488-89 (9th…