UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5255
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DUANE EAVES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-5256
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DUANE EAVES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-5257
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DUANE EAVES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-05-76; CR-05-164; CR-05-165)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Duane Eaves appeals his convictions on a guilty plea and
sentence on three separate counts of bank robbery, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000).* The district court sentenced Eaves to
165 months’ imprisonment and a three year term of supervised
release, and ordered payment of a statutory special assessment of
$300 and restitution of $4193. Eaves’ sole issue on appeal is
whether the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound
by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting
after Booker, sentencing courts should determine the sentencing
range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under
§ 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory
maximum). 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. We will
*
Eaves pled guilty to a single-count indictment returned by a
federal grand jury sitting in West Virginia charging him with bank
robbery (Appeal No. 05-5255), and also pled guilty to two
informations charging bank robbery in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Appeal No. 05-5256), and the Western District of
Virginia (Appeal No. 05-5257).
- 3 -
affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and within
the statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47. We have further
stated that “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). Indeed, “a sentence imposed
‘within the properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is
presumptively reasonable.’” United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
457 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, No. 05-10474 (U.S. Apr.
17, 2006).
We find that the district court properly calculated the
guideline range and appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory. The court sentenced Eaves only after considering the
factors set forth in § 3553(a). Based on these factors, and
because the court sentenced Eaves within the applicable guideline
range and below the statutory maximum, we find that Eaves’ sentence
of 165 months’ imprisonment is reasonable.
We therefore affirm Eaves’ convictions and 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 -