UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4699
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTWAN ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-01153)
Submitted: November 22, 2006 Decided: January 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antwan Robinson pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The
district court sentenced him as a career offender to a 262-month
term of imprisonment. In light of United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), we vacated his sentence and remanded for
resentencing. United States v. Robinson, 175 F. App’x 625 (4th
Cir. 2006) (No. 04-4597). On remand, the district court accepted
the parties’ sentencing recommendation and sentenced Robinson to
235 months in prison, a twenty-seven-month downward variance from
the advisory sentencing guideline range. Robinson appeals his
sentence on the ground that the district court did not understand
it had the discretion to vary from the guideline range based upon
the small amount of drugs and the absence of firearms and violence
in the predicate offenses. We affirm.
In a post-Booker sentencing, the district court must
calculate the advisory guideline range and then consider whether
that range “serves the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.A.] § 3553(a)
[(West 2000 & Supp. 2006)] and, if not, select a sentence that does
serve those factors.” United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). This court
reviews a post-Booker sentence “to determine whether the sentence
- 2 -
is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.”
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). If the district court imposes a variance sentence,
“[t]he district court must articulate the reasons for the sentence
imposed, particularly explaining any departure or variance from the
guideline range” in light of the factors in § 3553(a). Id.; Green,
436 F.3d at 456. In reviewing a variance sentence, we “consider
whether the district court acted reasonably both with respect to
its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the
extent of the divergence from the guideline range.” United States
v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236, 241 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.
Ct. 542 (2006).
Because the district court imposed a variance sentence,
we conclude that the court recognized its discretion to vary from
the advisory sentencing guideline range. Our review of the record
convinces us that the district court’s decision to impose a
variance sentence was reasonable. See Moreland, 437 F.3d at 435-
36. We also find that the extent of the variance is reasonable as
it takes into account Robinson’s status as a repeat drug offender
while giving him some credit for the absence of firearms and
violence from the predicate offenses. See id. at 437. Although
the district court did not explicitly articulate its reasons for
adopting the parties’ sentencing recommendation, the court
- 3 -
considered the parties’ arguments at sentencing, which focused on
the various factors in § 3553(a). See United States v. Montes-
Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006) (“The context surrounding
a district court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content for
[this Court] to evaluate both whether the court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and whether it did so properly.”), petition for
cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439).
Moreover, the court need not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection” or “explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on
the record.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’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 -