United States v. Johnson ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5145
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YOLANDA RENEE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
04-556)
Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Martin J. Clarke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Renee Johnson pled guilty to one count of
extortion under color of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951 (2000). On appeal, Johnson claims the district court abused
its discretion by imposing a four-level upward adjustment to the
offense level and by failing to fully consider the sentencing
factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005).
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness which includes
consideration of whether the sentence is within the statutory range
and whether the sentence was guided by the guidelines and
§ 3553(a). United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.
2006). The district court is given “some latitude” to impose a
sentence outside the guidelines. Id. Any such sentence is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 457.
We find the district court properly considered the
sentencing guidelines and articulated appropriate factors as to why
an upward adjustment was warranted. Because the court articulated
its reasoning for imposing a higher sentence and supported its
reasoning using appropriate factors, we find the sentence
reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -