US v. Calloway

Filing 920071226

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALANDRA JEAN CALLOWAY, a/k/a CJ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00439-WLO) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY JOHNSON BLACKMON LEE & LAWSON, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calandra Jean Calloway pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Calloway to 168 months imprisonment. Calloway noted a timely appeal in which she challenges her sentence as unreasonable. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. 546 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, However, in determining a sentence post- Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range as well as other relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), We will affirm a post-Booker cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). sentence if it "is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable." omitted). Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation "[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines United States v. Johnson, 445 range is presumptively reasonable." F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness of sentence within properly calculated sentencing guidelines range). - 2 - The district court properly calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 168 to 210 months imprisonment and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The court treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory and found a 168-month sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the factors set forth in 3553(a). Calloway's sentence was reasonable. We conclude that See also United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, No. 05-4437, slip op. at 11 (4th Cir. 2006) ("To establish reasonableness of a sentence, a district court need not explicitly discuss every 3553(a) factor on the record."). Accordingly, we affirm Calloway'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. 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?