United States v. Calloway , 259 F. App'x 576 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CALANDRA JEAN CALLOWAY, a/k/a CJ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00439-WLO)
Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY JOHNSON BLACKMON LEE & LAWSON,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calandra Jean Calloway pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of
cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
The district court sentenced Calloway to 168 months imprisonment.
Calloway noted a timely appeal in which she challenges her sentence
as unreasonable.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in determining a sentence post-
Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and
consider the applicable guideline range as well as other relevant
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2007). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). We will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, ___ U.S.
___, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness of sentence within properly calculated sentencing
guidelines range).
- 2 -
The district court properly calculated a sentencing
guidelines range of 168 to 210 months imprisonment and imposed a
sentence within the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The
court treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory and found a
168-month sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to
comply with the factors set forth in § 3553(a). We conclude that
Calloway’s sentence was reasonable. See also United States v.
Eura, 440 F.3d 625, No. 05-4437, slip op. at 11 (4th Cir. 2006)
(“To establish reasonableness of a sentence, a district court need
not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the record.”).
Accordingly, we affirm Calloway’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 -