UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HERBERT BENAVIDES, a/k/a Erick Gimenez, a/k/a
Marbin Yobani Garcia, a/k/a Erick Jimenez,
a/k/a Enri Chavez, a/k/a Herberth Benavides,
a/k/a Herberth Benavides-Argueta, a/k/a
Eduardo Antonio Argueta-Portillo, a/k/a Henry
Chavez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-05-307)
Submitted: May 15, 2006 Decided: June 21, 2006
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Meghan S.
Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellant. Kevin R. Gingras, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Benavides appeals his thirty-three month prison
sentence imposed after his guilty plea to illegal reentry of an
aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2)
(2000). Finding no error, we affirm.
Benavides claims that his sentence was unreasonable.
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, but still must calculate and consider the guideline
range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.
2005). We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both
reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. Id.
The district court properly calculated the sentencing
guideline range of thirty-three to forty-one months’ imprisonment.
As Benavides’ sentence is within the properly calculated guideline
range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006). Benavides has not rebutted that
presumption as the district court appropriately treated the
guidelines as advisory, considered the guideline range, and weighed
the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -