US v. McDonald
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT JOSEPH MCDONALD, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-04-92)
June 28, 2006
July 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles M. Henter, DAVIDSON & KITZMANN, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Robert Joseph McDonald pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was sentenced to 235 months in prison. McDonald appeals his sentence. We affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 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). However, 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.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).* At sentencing, the district court stated that it had read McDonald's Bench Memorandum Regarding Sentencing. The court heard
We reject McDonald's request that we find that this presumption of reasonableness violates Booker. Similarly, we reject McDonald's claim of a Sixth Amendment violation based on a jury's not having found facts pertaining to his past criminal conduct. See United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005). - 2 -
argument § 3553(a)
statutorily prescribed range, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2006), and further correctly calculated McDonald's guideline range. is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?