UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE LEPE-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-05-25)
Submitted: May 8, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
U. Wilfred Nwauwa, LAW OFFICES OF U. WILFRED NWAUWA, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, C. Nicks Williams, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jose Lepe-Rodriguez appeals the sixty-three-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to reentry after
deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000).
Lepe-Rodriguez challenges the reasonableness of his sentence,
asserting that the district court erred in sentencing him in four
ways: 1) the court failed to adequately explain its sentencing
determination; 2) the court failed to consider all 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) factors in determining the
sentence; 3) the court gave exclusive consideration to the
Guideline* range, effectively rendering it mandatory; and 4) the
court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the
purposes of sentencing. We find, however, that the district court
sentenced Lepe-Rodriguez only after appropriately considering and
examining the Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as
instructed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
“The 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
district court sentenced Lepe-Rodriguez within the applicable
*
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2004).
- 2 -
advisory Guideline range and well below the twenty-year statutory
maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). We cannot conclude
that, under these circumstances, Lepe-Rodriguez's sentence is
unreasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th
Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.
2006) (finding that sentence imposed within properly calculated
advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), cert.
denied, __ U.S. __, 2006 WL 1057741 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-
10474).
Accordingly, we affirm the 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
- 3 -