UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4960
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONNIE WAYNE BOWMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-38)
Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: April 28, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellant Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donnie Wayne Bowman appeals the sixty-three-month
sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000), and possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(j) (2000). Bowman challenges the reasonableness of his
sentence, contending that it is longer than necessary to comply
with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2) (West 2000
& Supp. 2005). We find, however, that the district court sentenced
Bowman only after appropriately considering and examining the
sentencing guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as instructed by
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The court sentenced
Bowman within the applicable advisory guideline range and well
below the ten-year statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2) (2000). We cannot conclude that, under these
circumstances, Bowman’s sentence is unreasonable. See United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that
sentence imposed within properly calculated advisory guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable); see also United States v.
Johnson, F.3d , , 2006 WL 893594, at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 7,
2006) (No. 05-4378) (finding that district court’s “detailed
inquiry into the various circumstances bearing upon [defendant’s]
sentence” satisfied court’s obligation to consider § 3553(a)
factors).
- 2 -
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 -