United States v. Hill , 204 F. App'x 253 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4424
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HENRY HILL, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00059-REP)
Submitted: October 4, 2006 Decided: October 26, 2006
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles A. Gavin, BLACKBURN, CONTE, SCHILLING & CLICK, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States
Attorney, Sara E. Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry Hill, Sr., appeals the 188-month sentence imposed
by the district court on resentencing in light of United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We affirm.
Counsel contends that Hill’s sentence is
unreasonable. In resentencing Hill post-Booker, the district court
considered the advisory sentencing guidelines range and the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). See
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). Although Hill asserts that the
district court did not recite facts to support each § 3553(a)
factor, the court need not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection” or “explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on
the record.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.
2006). “This is particularly the case when the district court
imposes a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range.” Id.(citation omitted).
Here, the sentence imposed by the district court is
within the advisory guidelines range and below the twenty-year
statutory maximum set forth in 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West
Supp. 2006). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 341. We
have carefully considered Hill’s arguments on appeal and conclude
- 2 -
that he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
Thus, we find the sentence reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Hill’s 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 -