United States v. Holt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4318
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY ALLEN HOLT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00320-WLO)
Submitted: March 12, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Clifton, Michelle B. Clifton, GRACE, HOLTON, TISDALE
& CLIFTON, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Deanna Davidian, Third-Year Law
Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2000), the district court sentenced
Gregory Allen Holt to a total of 210 months’ imprisonment. He
appeals, contending he received an unreasonable sentence. We find
that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines,
properly considered the relevant factors and the arguments of
counsel and that, therefore, the sentence imposed was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
Holt argues that the district court failed to provide an
adequate explanation of its reasons for imposing the sentence,
failed to properly consider all the relevant factors under 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and the sentence is
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary under the
circumstances.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61
(2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
2005). After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate
guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. United
States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court
then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in
conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a), and
- 2 -
determine an appropriate sentence. Davenport, 445 F.3d at 370. A
post-Booker sentence may be unreasonable for procedural or
substantive reasons. “A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable,
for example, if the district court provides an inadequate statement
of reasons. . . . A sentence may be substantively unreasonable if
the court relies on an improper factor or rejects policies
articulated by Congress or the Sentencing Commission.” United
States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th Cir.) (citations
omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
Here, the district court correctly determined the
advisory guideline range, and recited in detail Holt’s criminal
history. The court also heard from Holt’s counsel regarding Holt’s
attempt to cooperate with the Government. Moreover, although Holt
had no recent convictions, Holt sold cocaine to a confidential
informant on five separate occasions in 2005. Finally, we note the
statutory maximum for the offense of conviction is forty years’
imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2000). Because the
district court sentenced Holt within the guideline range,
adequately explained the basis for its sentencing decision, and
took into consideration Holt's mitigation arguments, we conclude
that the resulting 210-month sentence was reasonable. See United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006),
petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. July 21, 2006)
(No. 06-5439); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th
- 3 -
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 -