UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5251
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FELTON GARY CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (CR-04-67)
Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 13, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Felton Gary Carter pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). The district court sentenced him to a seventy-eight-month
term of imprisonment. Carter appeals his sentence on the ground
that it is unreasonable. We affirm.
Carter contends that his seventy-eight-month sentence is
unreasonable. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
a district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. However, in imposing a sentence
post-Booker, courts still must calculate the applicable guideline
range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider
the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). We will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it is both reasonable and within the statutorily
prescribed range. Id. at 433. “[A] sentence within the proper
advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
Here, the district court sentenced Carter post-Booker,
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and considered
the § 3553(a) factors. Carter’s seventy-eight-month sentence falls
within the properly calculated guideline range, and the sentence is
- 2 -
well within the ten-year statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2) (2000). Moreover, Carter suggests no information to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness. Thus, we find that the
sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence and deny the
Government’s motion for summary affirmance as moot. 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 -