eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2008-09

United States v. Hamby , 294 F. App'x 52 ( 2008 )


Menu:
 
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD LEE HAMBY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00241-WDQ-1)
Submitted:   September 16, 2008         Decided:   September 18, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sherri Keene, Staff Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.    Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Lee Hamby pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1) (2000).    Hamby was sentenced to 180 months’
imprisonment.   Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Hamby contends that his classification as an
armed career criminal violated the Sixth Amendment because it was
based on prior convictions that were not charged in the indictment
and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, nor admitted.   After
United States v. Booker,
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), sentencing courts are
still required to calculate the applicable advisory guideline range
based on appropriate findings of fact.   United States v. Moreland,
    437 F.3d 424
    , 432 (4th Cir. 2006).   We have previously noted that
sentencing factors should continue to be evaluated based on the
preponderance of the evidence.   United States v. Morris,
    429 F.3d 65
    , 72 (4th Cir. 2005).   Moreover, in United States v. Cheek,
    415 F.3d 349
    , 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005), we specifically determined that
prior convictions used as a basis for enhancement under the Armed
Career Criminal Act need not be charged in the indictment nor
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Hamby, appropriately treating the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C.
2
§ 3553(a) (2000) factors. See United States v. Davenport,
    445 F.3d 366
    , 370 (4th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Hamby’s 180-month sentence,
which is the lowest end of the applicable Guidelines range and the
statutory    minimum,   may    be     presumed     reasonable.     See   United
States v. Pauley,
    511 F.3d 468
    , 473 (4th Cir. 2007).                  Thus, we
conclude    the   district    court    did   not   abuse   its   discretion   in
imposing the chosen sentence.          See Gall v. United States,
    128 S. Ct. 586
    , 597 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3