UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS LAW, JR.,
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-05-90)
Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 9, 2006
Before MOTZ and WILLIAMS, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Miller A. Bushong, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Douglas Law, Jr., appeals his eighty-four month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea for possession of more than five
grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2000).
Law challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, contending that
it was longer than necessary because the sentencing court gave
undue weight to his criminal history. We affirm.
Law’s sentence was within the properly calculated
advisory guideline range and was well within the statutory maximum
set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). In sentencing Law, the district
court considered Law’s “significant” criminal history for a person
of his age, in addition to other factors under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Because the
district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory,
properly calculated and considered the guideline range, and weighed
the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we cannot conclude that Law’s
sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 2006 WL 1057741
(U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-10474) (finding sentence imposed within
properly calculated advisory guidelines range was presumptively
reasonable); see also United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 346
(4th Cir. 2006) (finding district court’s “detailed inquiry into
the various circumstances bearing upon [defendant’s] sentence”
satisfied obligation to consider § 3553(a) factors).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Law’s 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 -