United States v. Nicholson , 237 F. App'x 790 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAMON DEMONT NICHOLSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00269-FL)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi
Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damon Demont Nicholson appeals the 120-month sentence the
district court imposed after Nicholson pled guilty to one count of
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). We affirm.
On appeal, Nicholson first challenges the presumption of
reasonableness this court affords post-Booker* sentences that are
within a properly calculated guidelines range. A plethora of
circuit precedent forecloses this argument. See e.g., United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.), petition for
cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439);
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2006);
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). We
decline Nicholson’s invitation to ignore established circuit
authority. See United States v. Chong, 285 F.3d 343, 346-47 (4th
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (noting
that one panel of this court cannot overrule another).
Nicholson next asserts that the district court failed to
appropriately consider the other sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Although the district
court did not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
record, it was not required to “robotically tick through
§ 3553(a)’s every subsection.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345; see
United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, 632 (4th Cir.), petition for
cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 20, 2006) (No. 05-11659).
The record reflects that the district court complied with
§ 3553(a)(1), and considered Nicholson’s personal history and
circumstances — including his mental health and substance abuse
issues — in determining his sentence. Thus, this claim lacks
merit.
We affirm Nicholson’s 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
- 3 -