United States v. Clement , 158 F. App'x 499 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4393
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH D. CLEMENT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-111)
Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Megan J. Schueler, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph D. Clement pled guilty to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was
sentenced to a term of twenty-seven months imprisonment. Clement
appeals his sentence, arguing that it was unreasonable because it
was greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). We affirm.
Clement was arrested after police in Beckley, West
Virginia, went to his house following reports that drugs were being
sold there. They found Clement seated on a couch with a bag of
marijuana. A loaded rifle was beneath the couch. At his
sentencing hearing, Clement did not challenge the calculation of
the advisory guideline range, but presented mitigation evidence and
requested a sentence of probation, home confinement, or a term
below the guideline range of 27-33 months. The district court
instead sentenced him at the bottom of the guideline range. On
appeal, Clement contends that the sentence was unreasonable because
he obtained the firearm after he received threats to his family, he
had a steady job, and he had joint custody of his two daughters.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we will affirm a sentence if
it is within the statutory range and is reasonable. United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). On the
- 2 -
record before us, we cannot conclude that the sentence imposed by
the district court was unreasonable.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. 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
- 3 -