United States v. Dowell , 180 F. App'x 483 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4081
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YOUNG DOWELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00066))
Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 22, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Michael L. Desautels, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; Miller
A. Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Young Dowell, Jr. appeals his 210 month prison sentence
resulting from his conviction for distribution of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).* Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Dowell claims that his sentence was unreasonable. After
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is
no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing
guidelines, but still must calculate and consider the guideline
range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.
2005). We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both
reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. Id.As Dowell’s 210 month prison sentence was within the
properly calculated sentencing guideline range of 188 to 235
months’ imprisonment, it is presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006). Dowell has not
rebutted that presumption as the district court appropriately
treated the guidelines as advisory, calculated and considered the
guideline range, and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
*
We vacated Dowell’s original 210 month prison sentence in
light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United
States v. Dowell, No. 04-4973 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2005). On remand,
after taking into account the advisory guidelines, the district
court resentenced Dowell to 210 months’ imprisonment.
- 2 -
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
- 3 -