United States v. Pfeilmeier , 258 F. App'x 589 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4923
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT FRANK PFEILMEIER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00124-D)
Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert F. Pfeilmeier pled guilty to one count of bank
robbery by force and violence, or by intimidation, and placing the
life of another person in jeopardy through the use of a dangerous
weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2000).
Pfeilmeier was sentenced to ninety months’ incarceration. Finding
no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Pfeilmeier 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, 127
S. Ct. 3044 (2007); 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).
While Pfeilmeier concedes that his sentencing guidelines
range was correctly calculated, he contends that the district
court’s imposition of a sentence within the guidelines range was
still unreasonable. First, Pfeilmeier asserts that the
presumptively reasonable nature of the Sentencing Guidelines forced
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
the district court to give the guidelines undue weight in
comparison to the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2007). However, the district court followed the appropriate
sentencing procedure, as the court first calculated the proper
guidelines range and then considered all of the § 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
Furthermore, this court has noted that sentences within the
guidelines range are presumptively reasonable because most of the
§ 3553(a) factors are already incorporated into their calculation.
See Johnson, 445 F.3d at 342-43. Accordingly, Pfeilmeier’s claim
is meritless.
Pfeilmeier also argues that application of the guidelines
in his case is unreasonable in light of his severe and chronic
health problems, as he suffers from depression, substance abuse,
and a degenerative spinal condition. However, the district court
heard argument on this issue and explicitly noted that it had
considered Pfeilmeier’s personal history and characteristics,
including his substance abuse issues, and that the sentence took
into account the defendant’s need for medical care. Therefore,
because the district court properly calculated and considered the
advisory guidelines range and weighed the relevant § 3553(a)
factors, we conclude Pfeilmeier’s sentence, which was below the
statutory maximum and within the advisory guidelines range, is
- 3 -
reasonable. See Green, 436 F.3d at 455-56; Hughes, 401 F.3d at
546-47.
Accordingly, we affirm Pfeilmeier’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
- 4 -