UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY JAMES BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-158)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 15, 2006
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller,
Acting United States Attorney, Steven I. Loew, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony James Bennett appeals his thirty-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). He contends on
appeal that his sentence is unreasonable in light of United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We affirm.
Bennett maintains that his sentence is unreasonable
because his possession, while illegal, was harmless to the public.
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. at 767
(Breyer, J., opinion of the Court). The court should consider the
sentencing range along with the other factors identified 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). The sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed
range and . . . reasonable.” Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted).
In sentencing Bennett, the district court considered the
properly calculated guideline range and the factors in § 3553(a).
Because the court sentenced Bennett within the advisory guideline
range and within the ten-year statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2), we conclude that Bennett’s sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -