United States v. Roman ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5054
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT L. ROMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00236)
Submitted: April 30, 2007 Decided: May 15, 2007
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Roman appeals his eighty-two month sentence the
district court imposed after Roman pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute
five grams of more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(2000). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Roman contends his sentence, which falls four months
above the bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines range and
within the statutory maximum, was unreasonable because the district
court failed to consider all of the relevant factors in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and imposed a sentence that was
greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. This
court reviews the imposition of a sentence for reasonableness.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61 (2005); United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). After
Booker, a district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed
by the Sentencing Guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. However,
in imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts still must calculate the
applicable Guidelines range after making the appropriate findings
of fact and consider the range in conjunction with other relevant
factors under the Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will
affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily
- 2 -
prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the
proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
Here, the district court explicitly treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and sentenced Roman only after considering
the Sentencing Guidelines, the § 3553(a) factors, and counsel’s
arguments. Although the district court did not recite facts to
support each § 3553(a) factor, the court need not “robotically tick
through § 3553(a)’s every subsection” or “explicitly discuss every
§ 3553(a) factor on the record.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. We
thus conclude that Roman’s sentence is reasonable.
We therefore affirm Roman’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 -