United States v. Hooks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4892
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD PATRICK HOOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-04-640)
Submitted: January 5, 2007 Decided: February 6, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew M. Robinson, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Reginald I.
Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Rose Mary
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Patrick Hooks appeals his sentence following his
guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to carjacking,
possessing a firearm in furtherance of carjacking, and being a
felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2119(1), 924(c)(1)(A), and 922(g) (2000). The district court
sentenced Hooks to 169 months’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Hooks contends that the district court violated his due
process rights, as informed by ex post facto principles, by
imposing sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005), rather than under the mandatory guidelines applicable at
the time of his offense. This claim is without merit. We have
previously concluded that the retroactive application of the
remedial portion of Booker does not violate either due process or
ex post facto guarantees. United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d
366, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d
250 (4th Cir. 2006). We therefore reject Hooks’ ex post facto
claim.
Moreover, a sentence imposed within a properly calculated
guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that sentence
must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
reasonable.”). We reject Hooks’ contention that this principle
- 2 -
violates Booker. Here, the district court properly consulted the
guidelines and took them into account in determining Hooks’
sentence, made all the factual findings appropriate for that
determination, considered the sentencing range along with the other
factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and imposed a
sentence that was within the statutorily prescribed range and
reasonable.
We therefore affirm Hooks’ conviction and 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 -