United States v. Creech , 194 F. App'x 134 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4740
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRENT LESEAN CREECH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-336)
Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 10, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Trent Lesean Creech pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). He was sentenced to 120 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Creech argues that the district court’s
sentence was unreasonable. We affirm.
Creech’s sentence of 120 months of imprisonment was based
on an upward departure from the guidelines range of 92 to 115
months of imprisonment pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 4A1.3(a) (2004), based on Creech’s significant criminal
history. We review underlying legal determinations de novo and
factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Moreland,
437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
When reviewing a sentence outside the advisory guideline range--
whether as a product of a departure or a variance--this court
considers both whether the district court acted reasonably with
respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect
to the extent of the divergence from the guideline range. United
States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370-71 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted).
Creech does not challenge the district court’s
calculation of the guidelines range and the district court provided
cogent reasons for departing from that range, including the fact
that Creech had made a “life of crime” and that he had been
- 2 -
convicted as an adult of several violent crimes and drug offenses.
On this record, we cannot say that the district court erred in
applying an upward departure. See Moreland, 437 F.3d at 432-33;
see generally United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). In this case, the
departure resulted in a sentence only five months greater than that
permitted under the advisory guidelines range. Cf. Davenport, 445
F.3d at 372 (holding that sentence more than three times the top of
the advisory guideline range was unreasonable). We further
conclude that the extent of the departure was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Creech’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 -