UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT L. KIRK,
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-04-77)
Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 10, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew J. Katz, THE KATZ WORKING FAMILIES LAW FIRM, LC, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United
States Attorney, W. Chad Noel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Robert L. Kirk pled guilty
to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). At the September 2005
sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Kirk to fifty-one
months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the range provided for by
the advisory sentencing guidelines. Kirk does not appeal his
conviction, but he contends the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546
(4th Cir. 2005). In determining the sentence, however, courts are
still required to calculate and consider the guidelines range as
well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2005). We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is
within the statutorily prescribed range and it is reasonable.
Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47. Further, “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).
- 2 -
“[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines
range . . . is presumptively reasonable.” Green, 436 F.3d at 457
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Kirk’s sentence was within the guideline range and was
well within the statutory maximum of twenty years’ imprisonment.
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2000). The district court
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, properly
calculated and considered the guideline range, and weighed the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Kirk has not rebutted the presumption
that the sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. 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 -