United States v. Marrs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5081
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARLIN ANDREW MARRS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARLIN ANDREW MARRS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-289; 1:03-cr-00289)
Submitted: June 19, 2006 Decided: July 6, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Michael L. Desautels, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United
States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
These cases are before the court after our limited remand
for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). Marlin Andrew Marrs appeals the forty-one-month sentence
imposed after remand, on his guilty plea to distribution of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Marrs
challenges the reasonableness of this sentence, contending that it
is longer than necessary to comply with the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). We find, however,
that the district court sentenced Marrs only after appropriately
considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker. The court sentenced
Marrs within the applicable advisory guideline range and well below
the twenty-year statutory maximum set forth in 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(C) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).
We cannot conclude that, under these circumstances,
Marrs’s sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (finding that sentence imposed within
properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 74 U.S.L.W. 3654 (U.S. May
22, 2006) (No. 05-10474); see also United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that district court’s
“detailed inquiry into the various circumstances bearing upon
- 3 -
[defendant’s] sentence” satisfied court’s obligation to consider
§ 3553(a) factors).
Accordingly, we affirm the 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
- 4 -