United States v. Brown , 203 F. App'x 474 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4291
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER LARONN BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00095-FWB)
Submitted: September 8, 2006 Decided: October 23, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Laronn Brown appeals the sentence imposed
after we affirmed his conviction, vacated the sentence and remanded
to the district court for resentencing. Brown contends the
district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on facts not
found by the jury or admitted by him. Finding no error, we affirm.
Brown’s sentence was vacated and remanded because the
district court used the guidelines in a mandatory fashion. The
sentence was not imposed in accordance with the rules announced in
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). At resentencing, the
district court properly calculated the guidelines range of
imprisonment, considered the statutory sentencing factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and imposed a sentence within the
guidelines range of imprisonment.
We review a sentence to determine whether it was within
the statutory range of imprisonment and reasonable. United
States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2006).
Post-Booker, the district court is still required to consider the
sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment and the pertinent
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. The court is also
required to consider the factors under § 3553(a). Id. at 432. The
court determines the appropriate guidelines range of imprisonment
by making factual findings. Id. A sentence that falls within the
- 2 -
properly calculated range of imprisonment is entitled to a
presumption of reasonableness. Id. at 433.
We find the sentence reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm
the sentence. We deny Brown’s motion to dismiss counsel and
appoint new counsel. 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 -