United States v. Nomar , 209 F. App'x 283 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4608
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LOUIS N. NOMAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00091)
Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: December 8, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, L. Anna Forbes, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis N. Nomar appeals the seventy-seven month sentence
imposed by the district court on resentencing in light of United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), for his convictions of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud via the internet, and escape. We
affirm.
Nomar contends that his sentence is unreasonable because
his offenses were not violent, there was no evidence that anyone
was injured by his conduct, few victims have requested restitution,
no one was harmed in his escape, and, in his view, the disparity
between his seventy-seven-month sentence and co-defendant Yolanda
Monroe’s fifteen-month sentence is not justified. He argues that
a sentence of time served would be sufficient but not greater than
necessary to comply with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).
In resentencing Nomar after Booker, the district court
considered the advisory sentencing guidelines range and the factors
set forth in § 3553(a). See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d
424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). The
sentence imposed by the district court is within the advisory
guideline range of 70-87 months. The court imposed a term of sixty
months for the fraud count and a consecutive seventeen months for
the escape count, which did not exceed the statutory maximum of
five years for each count. “[A] sentence within the proper advisory
- 2 -
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006). We have carefully
considered Nomar’s arguments on appeal and conclude that he has
failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
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 -