United States v. Hope ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY HOPE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00522)
Submitted: March 19, 2007 Decided: May 17, 2007
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Gerald T.
Zerkin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Matthew C.
Ackley, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Hope pled guilty to distribution of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and the district
court sentenced him as a career offender to 172 months in prison.
Hope timely appealed, arguing that his sentence as a career
offender was unreasonable and greater than necessary to comply with
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court reviews a sentence to
determine whether the district court has correctly calculated the
advisory guideline range and has considered the range, as well as
the factors set out § 3553(a), and whether the sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.
2005). A sentence within the properly calculated advisory
guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309(2006).
Hope concedes that his sentence was within the correctly
calculated guideline range of 151 to 188 months. Therefore, the
sentence is presumptively reasonable. While Hope argues that the
district court failed to adequately address the factors enumerated
in § 3553(a), we conclude that the district court considered the
applicable § 3553 factors and did not impose a sentence that was
- 2 -
greater than necessary to comply with § 3553. See United States v.
Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Hope’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 -