UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL MONTRELL MYRICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-05-37)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 24, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana H. Cap, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover
Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Montrell Myrick pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine (Counts 1, 2) and possession with
intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base and a
quantity of cocaine (Count 3) and was sentenced to 100 months of
imprisonment on each conviction to be served concurrently with each
other. On appeal, Myrick argues that the district court erred by
refusing to depart from the advisory guidelines range, which takes
into account the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine sentencing ratio.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The district court considered Myrick’s properly
calculated sentencing range of 100 to 125 months and the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) and
sentenced him to 100 months of imprisonment. After the Supreme
Court’s opinion 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). In determining a sentence post-Booker,
sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the
applicable guideline range as well as § 3553(a). If the sentence
imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range, it is
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
- 2 -
Moreover, we have recently considered and rejected a
post-Booker challenge to the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine
sentencing ratio contained in the sentencing guidelines. See
United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for
cert. filed, June 20, 2006 (No. 05-11659). Because the district
court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and
properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable.
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 -