UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AARON ARTIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00058-BO-1)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: January 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
George E. B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Artis pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one
count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). The
district court sentenced Artis to seventy-six months’ imprisonment.
We affirm.
On appeal, Artis argues that his sentence is
unreasonable. However, Artis’s sentence was within the guideline
range of sixty-three to seventy-eight months and below the ten-year
statutory maximum sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(a)(2).
Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline
range and the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2006), we find the sentence reasonable. See
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (holding that
a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is
presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
To the extent that Artis argues that this court should revisit its
holding in Green, one panel of this court may not overrule a
decision of another panel. See, e.g., Scotts Co. v. United Indus.
Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n.2 (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm Artis’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
- 2 -