eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2007-06

United States v. Boyd , 229 F. App'x 217 ( 2007 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL E. BOYD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00137-RLW)
Submitted:   May 14, 2007                  Decided:   June 15, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Peter S.
Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel E. Boyd was convicted by a jury of one count of
conspiracy to possess ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation
of
    18 U.S.C. § 371
     (2000); and one count of being a felon in
possession of ammunition, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1)
(2000), and was sentenced to a total of 120 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Boyd raises two issues.      For the following reasons, we
affirm.
First, Boyd argues that the district court erroneously
denied his innocent and transitory possession jury instruction. We
find no error in the district court’s decision to deny Boyd’s
request as we have previously rejected this instruction in § 922(g)
cases.    United States v. Gilbert,
    430 F.3d 215
    , 218-20 (4th Cir.
2005).
Second, Boyd asserts that his sentence is unreasonable.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for reasonableness.
United States v. Booker,
    543 U.S. 220
    , 260-61 (2005); United
States v. Hughes,
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).         After
Booker, a district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed
by the Sentencing Guidelines.   Hughes,
    401 F.3d at 546
    .     However,
in imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts still must calculate the
applicable Guidelines 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
- 2 -
& Supp. 2006).    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 Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Johnson,
    445 F.3d 339
    , 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
Here,      the    district   court    explicitly    treated   the
Guidelines as advisory, and sentenced Boyd only after considering
the Sentencing Guidelines, the § 3553(a) factors, and counsel’s
arguments. Although the district court did not recite facts to
support each § 3553(a) factor, the court need not “robotically tick
through § 3553(a)’s every subsection” or “explicitly discuss every
§ 3553(a) factor on the record.”           Johnson,
    445 F.3d at 345
    .     We
thus conclude that Boyd’s sentence is reasonable.
We therefore affirm Boyd’s conviction and 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 -