UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5170
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EARL ALBERT MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-05-60)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 26, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, John L. File,
Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Earl Albert Moore pled guilty to armed bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2000). He was sentenced to
a term of 216 months imprisonment and ordered to make restitution
of $21. Moore appeals his sentence, contending that his sentence
is unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to comply with
the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005). We conclude that the district court sentenced Moore only
after appropriately considering the sentencing guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors, as instructed by United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005). The court sentenced Moore within the applicable
guideline range and below the twenty-five year statutory maximum
term. We cannot conclude that, under these circumstances, Moore’s
sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that sentence imposed within
properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable),
petition for cert. filed, April 17, 2006 (No. 05-10474).
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. 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
- 2 -