United States v. Brown , 164 F. App'x 459 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMIE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-04-1020)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 15, 2006
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jill E. M. HaLevi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States
Attorney, Brent Alan Gray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Brown appeals his twelve month and one day sentence
imposed after his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2)
(2000). Brown contends that the sentence imposed by the district
court was not reasonable. Finding no merit to his claim, we
affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound
by the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In
determining a sentence post-Booker, however, sentencing courts are
still required to calculate and consider the Guideline range
prescribed thereby as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id. As stated in Hughes, this
court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable
and within the statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47.
Further, this court has stated that, “while we believe that the
appropriate circumstances for imposing a sentence outside the
guideline range will depend on the facts of individual cases, we
have no reason to doubt that most sentences will continue to fall
within the applicable guideline range.” United States v. White,
405 F.3d 208, 219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 668 (2005).
- 2 -
The district court imposed a sentence within the advisory
Guideline range and below the statutory maximum for the offense.*
Furthermore, nothing in the record reveals that the district court
did not properly consider the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a). See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th
Cir. 2005) (holding “nothing in Booker or elsewhere requires the
district court to state on the record that it has explicitly
considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the
§ 3553(a) factors”); cf. United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115,
119 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting, in a pre-Booker sentencing challenge,
that “[w]e presume in non-departures, unless some contrary
indication exists, that a district court considered the pertinent
statutory factors.”). Brown identifies no persuasive reason why
the sentence imposed was not reasonable. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-
47 (noting after Booker, sentencing courts should calculate the
Guideline range, consider the other factors under § 3553, and
impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum).
Accordingly, we affirm Brown’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
*
The statutory maximum sentence under § 924(a)(2) for a
§ 922(g) violation is ten years in prison.
- 3 -