United States v. Rutland , 203 F. App'x 435 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QUENTIN ORLANDO RUTLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-02-31)
Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: October 17, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew B. Banzhoff, DEVEREUX & BANZHOFF, PLLC, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Quentin Orlando Rutland appeals his resentencing
following this court’s remand. See United States v. Rutland, No.
04-4080, 2005 WL 1317297 (4th Cir. June 3, 2005) (unpublished). We
affirm Rutland’s 235-month sentence.
Rutland was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting in the possession
with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base.
Because the district court determined that Rutland was responsible
for 240 grams of cocaine base and that he had obstructed justice,
Rutland was assigned an offense level of thirty-six. He was placed
in criminal history category III, which resulted in a guideline
range of 235 to 298 months. Rutland was sentenced to 235 months’
imprisonment.
We vacated Rutland’s sentence and remanded for
resentencing because the district court’s findings regarding drug
quantity and obstruction violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). On remand, the district court resentenced Rutland to
the same 235-month term of imprisonment. Rutland appealed,
contending his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to make specific findings on the record.
In post-Booker sentencing, district courts must calculate
the appropriate guideline range, consider the range in conjunction
with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.
- 2 -
§ 3553(a) (2000), and impose a sentence. United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). A sentence imposed within a properly calculated
guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309(2006).
Rutland’s 235-month sentence, which was at the lowest end
of the applicable guideline range, is presumptively reasonable. In
imposing Rutland’s sentence, the district court determined that it
did “not perceive a reasonable basis for a variance or departure.”
The court further stated that there was “no reason” to alter its
original finding that Rutland was responsible for 240 grams of
cocaine base. Though the district court did not explicitly discuss
§ 3553(a) factors on the record, we conclude under the
circumstances here that its disinclination to “robotically tick
through § 3553(a)’s every subsection” does not render Rutland’s
sentence unreasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 2006); see United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, 632 (4th
Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, __U.S.L.W.__ (U.S. June 20,
2006) (No. 05-11659).
Accordingly, we affirm Rutland’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 -