UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4606
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE SANTOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR-
04-30-RDB)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, Jeffrey
E. Risberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F.
Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, John Francis Purcell,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Santos pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000).
Santos was sentenced following the Supreme Court’s opinion in
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The
district court applied the holding of Booker and sentenced Santos
to 168 months imprisonment. Santos’ attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he
asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questions whether the district court abused its discretion in
failing to impose a lesser sentence by increasing the extent of the
downward departure granted on motion of the Government. Although
advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Santos
has not done so. We affirm.
After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate
Guideline range, consider the range in conjunction with other
relevant factors under the Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2005), 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, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). This remedial scheme applies to any
sentence imposed under the mandatory Guidelines, regardless of
whether the sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 547
- 2 -
(citing Booker, 543 U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 769 (Breyer, J.,
opinion of the Court)). The sentence must be “within the
statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.” Id. at 546-47
(citations omitted).
Here, the district court sentenced Santos below his
properly calculated Guideline sentencing range. The court
considered the factors in § 3553(a) and explained its reasons for
imposing a sentence below the Guidelines range in deciding his
sentence. We do not find under these circumstances that Santos’
sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Green, ___ F.3d
___, 2006 WL 267217 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2006) (discussing standards
to determine whether sentence is reasonable); see also United
States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324-25 (4th Cir. 1995) (a defendant’s
appeal of the extent of a downward departure is not reviewable
unless the departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in
violation of law or resulted from an incorrect application of the
guidelines).
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform the
client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If the client requests that
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw
- 3 -
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on the client. 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
- 4 -