US v. Brown

Filing 920061023

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LARONN BROWN, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 v. range of imprisonment F.3d 424, and 433 reasonable. (4th Cir. United 2006). States Moreland, 437 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. required to consider the factors under 3553(a). The court is also 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 Id. at 433. is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. We find the sentence reasonable. the sentence. Accordingly, we affirm We deny Brown's motion to dismiss counsel and We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the appoint new counsel. facts and legal before contentions the court materials would 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?