UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONTE LAMONT BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00053-WMN)
Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: October 24, 2006
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Kobie A. Flowers, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod
J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, George L. Russell, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following his guilty plea to interference with commerce
by robbery and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence, the district court sentenced Donte Brown as a career
offender to a total of 300 months imprisonment. He appeals,
contending that the district court did not properly consider
whether the career offender guideline appropriately applied in
light of his upbringing, mental health, and substance abuse. Thus,
he contends that he received an unreasonable sentence. We find
that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines,
properly considered the relevant factors and the arguments of
counsel and that, therefore, the sentence imposed was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61
(2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
2005). After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate
guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. United
States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court
then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in
conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006), and determine an appropriate sentence. Davenport,
445 F.3d at 370. If the sentence imposed is within the advisory
guideline range, it will be presumed to be a reasonable sentence.
- 2 -
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Brown contends that his sentence is unreasonable because
the district court failed to address his argument that the career
offender guideline over-represented the seriousness of his conduct
in light of his upbringing, substance abuse problems, and mental
illness. He asserts that the court “never considered how the
combination of a sad childhood, abuse, and mental health
effectively remove Mr. Brown from the category of offenders for
whom Congress intended the [career offender] guideline.”
Contrary to Brown’s claim, the district court did
consider this argument. The court acknowledged Brown’s “neglectful
and incompetent and socially dysfunctional and criminal parental
upbringing” and noted that Brown “certainly has been damaged by
that neglect, by sexual abuse, substance abuse and just an overall
deplorable upbringing.” However, the court also noted the serious
danger that Brown posed to the public: “the seriousness of this
particular matter [is] difficult to overstate.” The court
commented that Brown’s “danger to society is so evident that
looking at his past conduct, burglaries, distribution of control
dangerous substances, handgun possession, assault [on his pregnant
girlfriend], . . . four violation of probation incidents. All
these things indicate to me that there’s a very serious need for
protection of the public here.”
- 3 -
Although the district court did not expressly state that
it was declining to find that Brown’s criminal history over-
represented the seriousness of his conduct, the court did so find
and thus rejected Brown’s argument for a departure from the
advisory range or a non-guideline sentence. The court did not
agree with counsel’s argument that Brown’s conduct was not so
serious in light of his background; rather, the court noted the
very serious nature of it. After considering the guidelines and
the § 3553(a) factors and argument by counsel, the court found that
a sentence of 300 months--within the advisory guideline range--was
appropriate.
Because the district court adequately explained the basis
for its sentencing decision and considered both Brown’s arguments
and the § 3553(a) factors with respect to Brown and his conduct, we
find that the resulting 300-month total sentence was reasonable.
See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.
2006), petition for cert. filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S. July 21,
2006) (No. 06-5439); Green, 436 F.3d at 457 (holding that sentences
within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable).
Accordingly, we affirm Brown’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
- 4 -