UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KELLY GEORGE STANBACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-SGW)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 9, 2006
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Hart, Jr., HART LAW OFFICES, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, William F.
Gould, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelly George Stanback was sentenced to four hundred and
twenty months of imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute over fifty grams
of crack cocaine, one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and three counts of
distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base. We affirmed
his conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.
2005). See United States v. Stanback, No. 03-4541 (4th Cir.
July 29, 2005) (unpublished). On remand, the district court
resentenced Stanback to four hundred and twenty months of
imprisonment. Stanback again appeals, arguing that his sentence is
unreasonable. We affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
Sentencing Guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. In determining a
sentence post-Booker, however, sentencing courts are still required
to calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as
well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). Id. If
the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline
range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
- 2 -
Here, the district court appropriately treated the
guidelines as advisory and properly calculated and considered the
guideline range as well as the relevant factors under § 3553(a).
Stanback’s sentence is below the statutory maximum of life
imprisonment. Stanback contends that his sentence is unreasonably
long because it is essentially a life sentence considering that his
age at sentencing was thirty-eight and also considering that he had
a minimal criminal history score. However, his claims are not
adequate to rebut the presumption that the sentence, which was
within the guideline range, is reasonable. See Green, 436 F.3d at
456-57. We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Stanback’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 -