UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4279
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW JAMES WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00124)
Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: September 27, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United
States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Matthew James White pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute
fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000). Because the district court found White had
attempted an escape before his sentencing, White was sentenced to
292 months’ imprisonment. White appeals the reasonableness of his
sentence. We affirm.
White contends his sentence is unreasonable as the
district court erroneously concluded he had obstructed justice.
White’s contention rests solely on his belief that his testimony
should have been believed over that of the Government’s witnesses.
Credibility determinations, however, are within the sole province
of the factfinder and will not be reassessed on appeal. See United
States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).
Likewise, White contends his sentence is unreasonable
“because it is greater than necessary to promote respect for the
law and provide just punishment for the offense.” Because the
district court properly calculated and considered the advisory
guideline range and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000)
factors, we conclude White’s 292-month sentence, which was below
the statutory maximum and at the bottom of the advisory guideline
range, is reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546-47 (4th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
- 2 -
449, 457 (4th Cir.) (stating a sentence imposed within a properly
calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm White’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 -