US v. Stanback
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KELLY GEORGE STANBACK, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-SGW)
October 31, 2006
November 9, 2006
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Hart, Jr., HART LAW OFFICES, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, William F. Gould, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Kelly George Stanback was sentenced to four hundred and twenty months of imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute over fifty grams of crack cocaine, one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and three counts of distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base. We affirmed
his conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Stanback, No. 03-4541 (4th Cir. On remand, the district court hundred and twenty months of
July 29, 2005) (unpublished). resentenced Stanback to four
imprisonment. Stanback again appeals, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. the Supreme Court's decision in Booker, a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. In determining a
sentence post-Booker, however, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). Id. If
the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
- 2 -
guidelines as advisory and properly calculated and considered the guideline range as well as the relevant factors under § 3553(a). Stanback's sentence is below the statutory maximum of life
Stanback contends that his sentence is unreasonably
long because it is essentially a life sentence considering that his age at sentencing was thirty-eight and also considering that he had a minimal criminal history score. However, his claims are not
adequate to rebut the presumption that the sentence, which was within the guideline range, is reasonable. 456-57. See Green, 436 F.3d at
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Stanback's 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.
- 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?