United States v. Reinat , 251 F. App'x 146 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5103
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HECTOR REINAT, a/k/a Chico,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00126-2)
Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, LLP, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States
Attorney, Miller A. Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney,
Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hector Reinat pled guilty to distributing five grams or
more of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a) (West 1999
& Supp. 2007), and was sentenced to a term of 135 months
imprisonment. Reinat contends on appeal that his sentence was
unreasonable because the district court plainly erred in imposing
a sentence at the top of the guideline range without considering
his individual characteristics, as required under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993) (setting out plain error standard of
review). We affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the
sentencing court must calculate the appropriate advisory guideline
range and consider the range in conjunction with the factors set
out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), to determine
an appropriate sentence. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424,
432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). A sentence
within a properly calculated advisory guideline range is
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006); see United States v. Rita, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2462-68 (2007). The record reveals that the court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, although the court did not explicitly discuss
each factor on the record. It was not required to do so. Johnson,
445 F.3d at 345. Reinat suggests that the court erred in
- 2 -
mentioning information from a co-defendant’s trial; however, the
court did not rely on this information to resolve any disputed
matters. We conclude that no error occurred, and that the sentence
imposed was reasonable.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -