UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5152
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY DAJUAN ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-02-74)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 27, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Steven I. Loew,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffrey Dajuan Allen was sentenced to 120 months’
imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). We affirmed his
conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). See United States v. Allen, No. 03-4913 (4th Cir. July 28,
2005) (unpublished).
On remand, the district court resentenced Allen to 108
months’ imprisonment. Allen again appeals, contending the district
court imposed an unreasonable sentence.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, 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 (4th Cir. 2005). 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.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005). Id. As stated in Hughes, we will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it is within the statutorily prescribed range and it is
reasonable. Id. at 546-47; see also United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that if the sentence imposed
is within the properly calculated guideline range, then it is
presumptively reasonable).
- 2 -
On remand, the district court appropriately treated the
guidelines as advisory, calculated and considered the guideline
range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Allen
contends that the sentence was unreasonable because it was greater
than necessary to achieve the congressional sentencing objectives
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). However, his claims are not
adequate to rebut the presumption that the sentence within the
guidelines range is reasonable. See Green, 436 F.3d at 456-57. We
conclude the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Allen’s 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 -