UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4387
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS WILLIAMS LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00085-F-ALL)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Thomas Williams Lee, pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a stolen firearm
which had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (j), 924 (2000), and was
sentenced to seventy-one months of imprisonment on each conviction
to be served concurrently. On appeal, Lee argues that the district
court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
The district court considered Lee's properly calculated
sentencing range of 57 to 71 months and the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006) and sentenced him to 71
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, however,
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).
The district court imposed a sentence within the properly
calculated guideline range and well below the statutory maximum
- 2 -
sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for each count, to run
concurrently. The court permitted counsel to offer extensive
arguments in mitigation, including consideration of Lee’s personal
history and circumstances. Hence, we reject Lee’s assertion that
the court considered his criminal history exclusively in imposing
a sentence. 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 -