US v. Mitchell
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD EUGENE MITCHELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00178-WLO)
July 31, 2007
August 17, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Bernard Eugene Mitchell, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). Mitchell was sentenced to fifty-seven months'
Finding no error, we affirm. appeal, Mitchell challenges the presumption of
reasonableness this court affords post-Booker* sentences imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007), however, forecloses this argument. See also United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 75 U.S.L.W. 3707 (U.S. June 29, 2007) (No. 06-5439); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Mitchell also contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Because the district
court properly calculated and considered the advisory guidelines range and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude Mitchell's sentence, which was below the statutory maximum and
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). - 2 -
within the advisory guidelines range, is reasonable.
436 F.3d at 455-56; United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in 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?