UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DEREK COAXUM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-04-1088)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 12, 2006
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jill E. M. HaLevi, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Derek Coaxum appeals his conviction and sentence
following a guilty plea to use of the Internet to knowingly attempt
to transfer obscene material to an individual under the age of 16,
knowing that individual had not attained the age of 16, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 (2000). Coaxum’s attorney on appeal
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that in his opinion there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but raising as a potential issue whether the sentence
imposed by the district court was reasonable. Coaxum filed a pro
se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound
by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting
after Booker, sentencing courts should determine the sentencing
range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under
§ 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory
maximum). However, in determining a sentence post-Booker,
sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the
guideline range prescribed thereby as well as the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Id. We will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it is both reasonable and within the statutorily
prescribed range. Id. at 546-47. We have further stated that
- 2 -
“while we believe that the appropriate circumstances for imposing
a sentence outside the guideline range will depend on the facts of
individual cases, we have no reason to doubt that most sentences
will continue to fall within the applicable guideline range.”
United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 668 (2005). Indeed, “a sentence imposed ‘within the
properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable.’” United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.)
(citing United States v. Newsom, 428 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 2006 WL 271816 (2006).
We find that the district court properly calculated the
guideline range and appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory. The court sentenced Coaxum only after considering and
examining the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Based on these
factors, and because the court sentenced Coaxum within the
applicable guideline range and the statutory maximum, we find that
Coaxum’s sentence of 12 months and one day of imprisonment is
reasonable.
We find the issues raised in Coaxum’s pro se supplemental
brief to be without merit. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Coaxum’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
- 3 -
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 for leave
to withdraw 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 -