United States v. Naranjo , 203 F. App'x 499 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4646
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HECTOR CHAVEZ NARANJO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-04-242)
Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 16, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt,
Research and Writing Attorney, Riley H. Ross, III, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Joseph E. DePadilla, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hector Naranjo pled guilty without the benefit of a plea
agreement to illegal reentry after having been deported following
a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 2000). The district court sentenced
Naranjo to sixty-two months’ imprisonment. Naranjo appeals,
contending the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence in
violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
After Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by
the sentencing range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines, which
are now advisory. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546
(4th Cir. 2005). In determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing
courts are required to calculate and consider the applicable
guideline range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Id. We will affirm a
post-Booker sentence if it falls within the statutorily prescribed
range and is reasonable. Id. at 546-47. A sentence that falls
within the correctly determined guideline range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.
2006), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).*
*
We reject Naranjo’s request to find that the presumption of
reasonableness discussed in Green violates Booker, as one panel of
the court may not overrule another panel. See Scotts Co. v. United
Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002).
- 2 -
Naranjo’s sentence was within the properly calculated
guideline range of 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment and was well
within the statutory maximum of twenty years’ imprisonment. See 8
U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) (West 2000). Because the district court
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly
calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors, including those enumerated by counsel, we find
the sentence reasonable. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d 375, 377-79 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (U.S.
July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439).
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 -