United States v. Dawson , 259 F. App'x 578 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4369
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD DAWSON, a/k/a Tree,
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. (5:06-cr-00061-FL)
Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronald Dawson was convicted on a guilty plea to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). The district court sentenced
Dawson to 120 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised
release. Dawson appeals his conviction and sentence, asserting
that the district court erred in sentencing him based on an
improper factor, and that his conviction and sentence violated the
Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. We
affirm.
In imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), a court still must calculate the applicable
guideline range after making the appropriate findings of fact, and
consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under
the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-
Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed range
and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory
[g]uidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
- 2 -
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines
sentence).
The district court sentenced Dawson only after
considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker, and stated that the
sentence it imposed was based on Dawson’s extensive criminal
record, lack of significant legitimate employment history, and
history of probation revocation. Dawson’s 120-month sentence is
within the properly calculated advisory guideline range and does
not exceed the ten-year statutory maximum authorized by 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2) (2000). Dawson does not suggest any information so
compelling as to rebut the presumption that his sentence is
reasonable. We therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
Dawson’s final claim, that his federal conviction should
be vacated because he was prosecuted for the same conduct in state
court, allegedly in violation of his rights secured by the Double
Jeopardy Clause, is without merit. As Dawson himself acknowledges,
this claim is foreclosed by Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit
precedents applying the duel sovereign doctrine. See Bartkus v.
Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 128-29 (1959); United States v. Alvarado,
440 F.3d 191, 196-97 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 81
(2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Dawson’s conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -