United States v. Bowman , 178 F. App'x 234 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4960
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DONNIE WAYNE BOWMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-04-38)
    Submitted:   April 19, 2006                 Decided:   April 28, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
    Appellant Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
    Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.    Charles T.
    Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Donnie   Wayne      Bowman     appeals     the    sixty-three-month
    sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in
    possession of a firearm, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1)
    (2000), and possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (j) (2000).          Bowman challenges the reasonableness of his
    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. 2005). We find, however, that the district court sentenced
    Bowman only after appropriately considering and examining the
    sentencing guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as instructed by
    United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005).                  The court sentenced
    Bowman within the applicable advisory guideline range and well
    below   the    ten-year       statutory    maximum     set   forth     in   
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (a)(2)    (2000).         We   cannot      conclude     that,    under     these
    circumstances, Bowman’s sentence is unreasonable.                           See United
    States v. Green, 
    436 F.3d 449
    , 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that
    sentence imposed within properly calculated advisory guidelines
    range is presumptively reasonable); see also United States v.
    Johnson,        F.3d      ,     , 
    2006 WL 893594
    , at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 7,
    2006)   (No.    05-4378)       (finding    that    district     court’s      “detailed
    inquiry into the various circumstances bearing upon [defendant’s]
    sentence”     satisfied       court’s     obligation    to    consider      §    3553(a)
    factors).
    - 2 -
    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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4960

Citation Numbers: 178 F. App'x 234

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 4/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023