UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4283
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE LEIGH CARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-345)
Submitted: October 19, 2005 Decided: November 23, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Leigh Carr appeals his forty-six month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2000). We affirm.
Carr contends that the sentence imposed by the district
court was not reasonable. After United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738 (2005), courts must calculate the appropriate guideline
range, consider the range in conjunction with other relevant
factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and
impose a sentence. If a court imposes a sentence outside the
guideline range, the district court must state its reasons for
doing so. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir.
2005). This court should review a sentence imposed pursuant to
§ 3553 to determine whether it is reasonable. Booker, 125 S. Ct.
at 764-67.
The district court imposed a sentence within the advisory
guidelines range and below the statutory maximum* for the offense
and considered the relevant factors under § 3553(a). We have been
given no reason why the sentence imposed was not reasonable. Cf.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005)
(citing Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-65, 767) (noting after Booker,
*
The statutory maximum for 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) is ten
years. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000).
- 2 -
sentencing courts should determine the sentencing range under the
guidelines, consider the other factors under § 3553(a), and impose
a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum). Accordingly,
we affirm Carr’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 -