UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4650
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-200-NCT)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Paul A.
Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Dewayne Cunningham appeals the 185-month
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to bank robbery, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). He contends that, in light of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), his
sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
Cunningham asserts on appeal that his sentence is
unreasonable because he presented mitigating factors at the
sentencing hearing to support a lower sentence. Although the
Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes clear
that a sentencing court “must consult [the] Guidelines and take
them into account when sentencing.” 125 S. Ct. 767 (Breyer, J.,
opinion of the Court). The court should consider this sentencing
range along with the other factors described in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and then impose a sentence.
See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005)
(applying Booker on plain error review). The sentence must be
“within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.”
Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted).
In sentencing Cunningham, the district court considered
the properly calculated advisory Sentencing Guideline range and the
factors in § 3553(a). Because the court sentenced Cunningham
within the advisory Guideline range and within the twenty-year
statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), we conclude that the
- 2 -
sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Cunningham’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 -