United States v. Baker , 193 F. App'x 258 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4317
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROCHARD A. BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-243)
Submitted: July 26, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana H. Cap, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover
Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rochard Baker appeals his 110-month prison sentence
imposed after his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924
(2001). Finding no error, we affirm.
As a threshold issue, the Government claims that this
court lacks jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000) to review
Baker’s claim because his sentence fell within the advisory
guidelines range. That argument is foreclosed by our recent
decision in United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 377 (4th
Cir. 2006), where we found jurisdiction under § 3742 to review a
sentence within the advisory guidelines range for reasonableness.
Baker claims that his sentence, while within the advisory
guidelines range, was 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, but still must
calculate and consider the guideline range as well as the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it is both reasonable and within the statutorily
prescribed range. Id.The district court properly calculated the guideline
range of 110-120 months in prison. As Baker’s sentence is within
the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively
- 2 -
reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Moreover, it is clear from
the record that the sentencing court also weighed the sentencing
factors listed in § 3553(a) and took counsel’s arguments under
consideration.
Accordingly, we 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 -