UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4294
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT JAMES WALLACE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-03-374-L)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006
Before NIEMEYER AND MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elita C. Amato, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Charles J. Peters, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Wallace pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute more than fifty kilograms of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Wallace was
sentenced following the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court applied the
holding of Booker and sentenced Wallace to 262 months imprisonment.
On appeal, Wallace claims that he was sentenced in violation of
Booker because his sentence was unreasonable and the district court
failed to fully account for all the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000). We affirm.
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 applicable guideline range as well as the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Id. If the sentence imposed is
within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 2006 WL 267217,
at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2006).
Wallace’s sentence was both within the guideline range of
262-327 months, and well within the statutory maximum of life
imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (2000). Because the district
- 2 -
court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and
properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable. See
also United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, No. 05-4437, slip op. at
11 (4th Cir. 2006) (“To establish reasonableness of a sentence, a
district court need not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor
on the record.”). Accordingly, we affirm Wallace’s sentence.
We grant Wallace’s motion for leave to file a pro se
supplemental brief and find the issues he asserts therein without
merit. 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 -