United States v. Pankey , 195 F. App'x 130 ( 2006 )

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 7, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7884
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHARITA LASHAWN PANKEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-05-94)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 22, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sharita LaShawn Pankey pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to intentionally distributing a quantity of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). Pankey was
sentenced following the Supreme Court's opinion in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court applied the
holding of Booker and sentenced Pankey to fifty-seven months
imprisonment. On appeal, Pankey claims her sentence is
unreasonable because the district court should have sentenced her
below the guideline range to account for the 100-to-1 sentencing
disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences. Moreover,
she claims the sentence is greater than necessary to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
Pankey’s challenge to the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity
between powder and crack cocaine sentences is foreclosed by our
decision in United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, 633-34 (4th Cir.
2006), petition for cert. filed (No. 05-11659)(June 20, 2006).
Moreover, Pankey's sentence was both within the guideline range of
57-71 months and well within the statutory maximum of twenty years
imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (2000). Because the district
court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and
properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable. See
- 2 -
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (holding that
a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006);
Eura, 440 F.3d at 632 (“To establish the reasonableness of a
sentence, a district court need not explicitly discuss every §
3553(a) factor on the record.”).
Accordingly, we affirm Pankey'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 -