United States v. Canady

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGGIE WALDO CANADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00127-F-3)
Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC, Warrenton,
North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Reggie Waldo Canady appeals his 248-month prison sentence
resulting from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), possession with the
intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000), and for using and carrying a firearm during the
drug conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Finding
no error, we affirm.
Canady contends that the district court imposed his
sentence in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). After Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by the
range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining the
sentence, however, courts are still required to calculate and
consider the guidelines range, as well as the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id. In sentencing
defendants after Booker, district courts should apply a
preponderance of the evidence standard, taking into account that
the resulting guideline range is advisory only. United States v.
Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a
post-Booker sentence if it is within the statutorily prescribed
range and is reasonable. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47.
- 2 -
Here, the district court correctly calculated Canady’s
range under the now-advisory sentencing guidelines using a
preponderance of the evidence standard. After giving due
consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, the district court then
sentenced him within the statutorily prescribed range for his
offenses and below the range provided for by the sentencing
guidelines. Canady has not rebutted the presumption that the
district court imposed a reasonable sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 -