United States v. Rita

Affirmed by Supreme Court, June 21, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4674
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VICTOR A. RITA, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (CR-04-105)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Matthew Martens, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
Affirmed by Supreme Court, June 21, 2007
PER CURIAM:
Victor A. Rita appeals his jury conviction and sentence
on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false
statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1623(a), 1001(a)(2), and
1503 (2000), respectively. Rita’s sole issue on appeal is whether
the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound
by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting
after Booker, sentencing courts should determine the sentencing
range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under
§ 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory
maximum). However, in determining a sentence post-Booker,
sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the
guideline range prescribed thereby as well as the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Id. We will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it is both reasonable and within the statutorily
prescribed range. Id. at 546-47. We have further stated that
“while we believe that the appropriate circumstances for imposing
a sentence outside the guideline range will depend on the facts of
individual cases, we have no reason to doubt that most sentences
will continue to fall within the applicable guideline range.”
- 2 -
Affirmed by Supreme Court, June 21, 2007
United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 668 (2005). Indeed, “a sentence imposed ‘within the
properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable.’” United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.
2006) (citing United States v. Newsom, 428 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 2006 WL 271816 (2006)).
We find that the district court properly calculated the
guideline range and appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory. The court sentenced Rita only after considering the
factors set forth in § 3553(a). Based on these factors, and
because the court sentenced Rita within the applicable guideline
range and the statutory maximum, we find that Rita’s sentence of
thirty-three months’ imprisonment is reasonable.
We therefore affirm Rita’s 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 -