United States v. Mitchell , 235 F. App'x 184 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BERNARD EUGENE MITCHELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00178-WLO)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Eugene Mitchell, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2000). Mitchell was sentenced to fifty-seven months’
incarceration. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Mitchell challenges the presumption of
reasonableness this court affords post-Booker* sentences imposed
within a properly calculated guidelines range. The Supreme Court’s
recent decision in Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007),
however, forecloses this argument. See also United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 75 U.S.L.W. 3707 (U.S. June 29, 2007) (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).
Mitchell also contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Because the district
court properly calculated and considered the advisory guidelines
range and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude
Mitchell’s sentence, which was below the statutory maximum and
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
within the advisory guidelines range, is reasonable. See Green,
436 F.3d at 455-56; United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47
(4th Cir. 2005).
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 -