United States v. Wilson ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4661
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ADONIS GARTH WILSON,
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-00048-WLO)
Submitted: February 21, 2007 Decided: March 26, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Adonis Garth Wilson appeals the 275-month sentence the
district court imposed after Wilson pled guilty to distribution of
cocaine base, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and
possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). We affirm.
Wilson’s conduct carried a base offense level of twenty-
six. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(7) (2005)
(“USSG”). Due to the nature of this offense and Wilson’s criminal
history, Wilson was designated a career offender under USSG
§ 4B1.1. An eleven-level enhancement was applied to Wilson’s base
offense level pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1. Wilson was also granted a
three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to
USSG § 3E1.1. The resulting total offense level was thirty-four.
This, coupled with a criminal history category of VI, yielded an
advisory Guideline range of 262-327 months’ imprisonment. Wilson
objected to his designation as a career offender, but the objection
was overruled.
On appeal, Wilson first posits that the presumption of
reasonableness this court affords post-Booker* sentences that are
within a properly calculated Guidelines range is unconstitutional.
Because one panel of this court cannot overrule another, we decline
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
Wilson’s invitation to ignore established circuit authority. See
United States v. Chong, 285 F.3d 343, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2002).
Wilson next asserts that his sentence is unreasonable.
In post-Booker sentencing, district courts must calculate the
appropriate Guidelines range, consider the range in conjunction
with other relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and
impose a sentence. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432-33
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). A sentence
imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Wilson’s 275-month sentence is presumptively reasonable
because it is within both the properly calculated Guidelines range
and the applicable statutory maximum. The record reflects that the
district court complied with § 3553(a), and considered Wilson’s
personal history and circumstances in determining his sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Wilson’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
- 3 -