US v. Lee
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS WILLIAMS LEE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00085-F-ALL)
Submitted: September 28, 2006
Decided: October 5, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Thomas Williams Lee, pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a stolen firearm which had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (j), 924 (2000), and was sentenced to seventy-one months of imprisonment on each conviction to be served concurrently. On appeal, Lee argues that the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. that follow, we affirm. The district court considered Lee's properly calculated sentencing range of 57 to 71 months and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006) and sentenced him to 71 months of imprisonment. After the Supreme Court's opinion in For the reasons
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing
guidelines. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining a sentence post-Booker, however,
sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range as well as § 3553(a). If the sentence
imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). The district court imposed a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range and well below the statutory maximum
- 2 -
The court permitted counsel to offer extensive
arguments in mitigation, including consideration of Lee's personal history and circumstances. Hence, we reject Lee's assertion that
the court considered his criminal history exclusively in imposing a sentence. Because the district court appropriately treated the
guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable. 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?