UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES G. CANADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00127-F)
Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 13, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer Harjo, SMITH, SMITH & HARJO, Wilmington, North Carolina,
for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles G. Canady appeals his 200-month prison sentence
resulting from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) and use of a firearm
during a drug conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000).
Finding no error, we affirm.
Canady contends the district court imposed his sentence
in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
After Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining the sentence,
however, courts are still required to calculate and consider the
guidelines range, as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id. In sentencing defendants
after Booker, district courts should apply a preponderance of the
evidence standard, taking into account that the resulting guideline
range is advisory only. United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72
(4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is
within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. Hughes,
401 F.3d at 546-47.
Here, the district court correctly calculated Canady’s
range under the now-advisory sentencing guidelines using a
preponderance of the evidence standard. After giving due
- 2 -
consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, the district court then
sentenced him within the statutorily prescribed range for his
offenses and below the range provided for by the sentencing
guidelines. Canady has not rebutted the presumption that the
district court imposed a reasonable sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 -