UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4367
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL EDWARD WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-04-174-WLO)
Submitted: February 10, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Cowan, Jr., SMITH MOORE L.L.P., Greensboro, North
Carolina; Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, SMITH MOORE L.L.P., Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Angela H. Miller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
A jury convicted Michael Edward Woods of bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000), armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2000), and brandishing a
short-barreled shotgun during a crime of violence, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). He appeals his
convictions and 320-month sentence, asserting that the district
court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, and that his sentence is
unreasonable. We affirm.
Woods contends that the evidence did not support his
convictions because the evidence failed to conclusively identify
him as the robber. We review de novo the district court’s denial
of a Rule 29 motion. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693
(4th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a claim
of insufficient evidence, “[t]he verdict of a jury must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We have reviewed the trial
testimony in the joint appendix and are convinced that the evidence
was sufficient to convict Woods. See United States v. Sun, 278
F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e do not review the credibility
of the witnesses and assume the jury resolved all contradictions in
the testimony in favor of the government.”); United States v. Redd,
- 2 -
161 F.3d 793, 797 (4th Cir. 1998) (finding eyewitness testimony
sufficient to support conviction if witnesses deemed credible by
fact finder).
Woods also asserts on appeal that, in light of United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district
court erred by designating him as a career offender and that his
sentence is unreasonable. 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.” 543 U.S. at __, 125 S. Ct. at 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. If
a court imposes a sentence outside the guideline range, the
district court must state its reasons for doing so. See United
States v. Green, F.3d , , 2006 WL 267217, at *4-*5 (4th Cir.
Jan. 6, 2006) (No. 05-4270) (citing United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005)). The sentence must be “within the
statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.” Hughes, 401
F.3d at 546-47 (citations omitted); see Green, F.3d at , 2006
WL 267317, at *5-*6 (discussing standards for determining whether
sentence is reasonable).
In sentencing Woods, the district court correctly
concluded that his North Carolina common law robbery conviction
- 3 -
qualified as a crime of violence for purposes of designating him as
a career offender. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1,
4B1.2(a) & cmt. n.1 (2004). The court then properly calculated the
advisory Sentencing Guideline range, considered the factors in
§ 3553(a), and explained its reasons for sentencing Woods below the
advisory Sentencing Guideline range. We conclude that the sentence
is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Woods’ convictions and 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
- 4 -