UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4569
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL WAYNE ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-04-409)
Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Wayne Allen pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime
punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a) (2000). He appeals his sentence of 110
months of imprisonment. Because we conclude that the district
court properly determined Allen’s sentence and that his sentence is
reasonable, we affirm.
On appeal, Allen does not dispute that the district court
properly calculated the applicable Guideline* range. He argues,
however, that his sentence is unreasonable because the district
court improperly determined his sentence by failing to adequately
explain its sentencing determination, failing to adequately
consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2005), and imposing a sentence greater than necessary to
fulfill the purposes of sentencing. Allen’s Guideline range was
ninety-two to 115 months. The statutory maximum term of
imprisonment based upon Allen’s guilty plea was 120 months.
We recently considered the analysis required in reviewing
a sentence for reasonableness and formulated the following
standards for district courts:
Thus, to sentence a defendant, district courts must
(1) properly calculate the sentence range recommended by
the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) determine whether a
*
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2004).
- 2 -
sentence within that range and within statutory limits
serves the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and, if not,
select a sentence that does serve those factors;
(3) implement mandatory statutory limitations; and
(4) articulate the reasons for selecting the particular
sentence, especially explaining why a sentence outside of
the Sentencing Guideline range better serves the relevant
sentencing purposes set forth in § 3553(a).
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006)
(footnote omitted). We also agreed with a sister circuit that “a
sentence imposed ‘within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is presumptively reasonable.’” Id. at 457 (quoting United States
v. Newsom, 428 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir. 2005).
Our review of the record in this case leads us to
conclude that the district court complied with the requirements
announced in Green, despite the fact that it did not have the
benefit of that decision at Allen’s sentencing. Contrary to
Allen’s assertions, the record demonstrates a very deliberate,
thorough, and careful consideration of the proper sentencing
factors by the district court. We recently held that “[t]he
district court need not discuss each factor set forth in § 3553(a)
‘in checklist fashion’; ‘it is enough to calculate the range
accurately and explain why (if the sentence lies outside it) this
defendant deserves more or less.’” United States v. Moreland, 437
F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Dean, 414
F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005). The transcript of the sentencing
hearing in this case includes a sufficient discussion of those
factors to allow us to review the sentencing determination. Having
- 3 -
conducted that review, we find no error in the district court’s
selection of the particular sentence imposed in this case.
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
- 4 -