United States v. Dove ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4406
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID HEATH DOVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-04-62)
Submitted: March 3, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States
Attorney, W. Chad Noel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Heath Dove appeals his eighty-four month sentence
imposed following a guilty plea for two counts of distribution of
cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). We affirm.
On appeal, Dove contends that the sentence imposed by the
district court erroneously relied on facts that he did not admit
to, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. After United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), courts must calculate the
appropriate guideline range, consider the range in conjunction with
other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000), and impose a sentence. If a court imposes a sentence
outside the guideline range, the district court must state its
reasons for doing so. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547
(4th Cir. 2005). This remedial scheme applies to any sentence
imposed under the mandatory guidelines, regardless of whether the
sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. Id. (citing Booker, 125 S.
Ct. at 769). This court should review a sentence imposed pursuant
to § 3553 to determine whether it is reasonable. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. at 764-67.
In sentencing Dove, the district court expressly treated
the sentencing guidelines as advisory, considered the factors
listed in § 3553(a), and sentenced Dove within the properly
- 2 -
calculated guidelines range, and below the statutory maximum* for
the offense. Accordingly, we conclude Dove’s sentence was
reasonable. See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47 (noting after Booker,
sentencing courts should determine the sentencing range under the
guidelines, consider the other factors under § 3553(a), and impose
a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum). We therefore
affirm Dove’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
*
The statutory maximum for § 841 is twenty years. See 18
U.S.C. § 841 (2000).
- 3 -