UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4697
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN K. MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-04-304)
Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Kenneth Moore appeals his thirty-seven-month
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), possession of a
firearm by an individual subject to a domestic violence protection
order, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (2000), and possession of a firearm by
an individual convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(9) (2000). He contends on appeal that his sentence
violates United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005). We affirm.
Moore maintains that his sentence is unreasonable in
light of his exemplary work history and his family
responsibilities. 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 Moore, the district court considered the
properly calculated guideline range and the factors in § 3553(a).
- 2 -
Moore’s sentence is within that guideline range and below the ten-
year statutory maximum to which he was subject. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2)(2000). We conclude that Moore’s sentence is
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the 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 -