United States v. Canady , 178 F. App'x 213 ( 2006 )

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 7, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5141
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GERSHOM CANADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-05-48)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender; Gretchen L. Taylor,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert E.
Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gershom Canady appeals the 136-month sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to eight drug offenses. He contends on appeal
that his sentence is unreasonable in light of United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We affirm.
Canady contends that his sentence is unreasonable because
the district court allegedly failed to consider one of the factors
identified at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) in
imposing sentence. Although the sentencing guidelines are no
longer mandatory, Booker makes clear that a sentencing court “must
consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when”
sentencing a defendant. 125 S. Ct. at 767 (Breyer, J., opinion of
the Court). The court should consider the sentencing range along
with the § 3553(a) factors, and then impose a sentence. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). The sentence
must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
reasonable.” Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted).
In sentencing Canady, the district court considered the
properly calculated advisory guideline range and specifically
addressed several of the § 3553(a) factors. It is immaterial that
the court did not discuss each factor. See United States v. Scott,
426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Davis, 53
F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). Because the court sentenced Canady
within the advisory guideline range and below the forty-year
- 2 -
statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2000), we conclude
that Canady’s sentence is reasonable. 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
- 3 -