United States v. Wilkins , 206 F. App'x 293 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHELE WILKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:05-cr-00253-HMH-5)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Regan A. Pendleton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michele Wilkins appeals her thirty-month sentence imposed
after she pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to
possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of
cocaine. On appeal, she argues that her sentence is unreasonable
because a co-defendant charged with the same crime and with a
similar criminal history received a sentence of probation. Finding
no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 200, 260-61
(2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
2005). After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate
guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. United
States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court
then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in
conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006), and determine an appropriate sentence. Davenport,
445 F.3d at 370. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated
guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309(2006). If a court imposes a sentence outside the guideline range,
it must state its reasons for doing so. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546.
First, we find Wilkins’ sentencing disparity argument to
be without merit because she was not similarly situated to her
- 2 -
co-defendant, Marielena Martinez. Wilkins accepted a less
favorable guilty plea agreement, placing her in a higher offense
level, and Martinez received a downward departure for providing
substantial assistance to the Government, which Wilkins did not
receive. Because the district court adequately explained the basis
for its sentencing decision, taking into consideration Wilkins’
arguments, we conclude that the resulting 30-month sentence was
reasonable. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380
(4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S.
July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439); Green, 436 F.3d at 457. Accordingly,
we affirm Wilkins’ 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 -