UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ANTHONY VITTITOE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00264-NCT)
Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: February 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.
Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Anthony Vittitoe appeals the 160-month sentence the
district court imposed after Vittitoe pled guilty to one count of
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). We
affirm.
Vittitoe’s conduct carried a base offense level of
twenty, which was increased two levels because the robbery involved
the property of a financial institution. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(a) & (b)(1) (2005) (“USSG”). Due to the
nature of this offense and Vittitoe’s criminal history, Vittitoe
was designated a career offender. USSG § 4B1.1 (2005). Because
the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) is twenty years, Vittitoe’s offense level
increased to thirty-two. USSG § 4B1.1(b) (2005). With a three-
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Vittitoe’s total
offense level was twenty-nine. This, coupled with a criminal
history category of VI,1 yielded an advisory Guidelines range of
151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. USSG Ch. 5, Pt. A (sentencing
table) (2005). Vittitoe did not object to the application of the
Guidelines as set forth in the presentence report.
1
Under the career offender guideline, “[a] career offender’s
criminal history category in every case . . . shall be Category
VI.” USSG § 4B1.1(b).
- 2 -
On appeal, Vittitoe first posits that the presumption of
reasonableness this court affords post-Booker2 sentences that are
within a properly calculated Guidelines range is unconstitutional.
A plethora of circuit precedent forecloses this argument. See,
e.g., United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 21,
2006) (No. 06-5439); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42
(4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006). Because one panel of this court cannot overrule another,
we decline Vittitoe’s invitation to ignore established circuit
authority. United States v. Chong, 285 F.3d 343, 346-47 (4th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Vittitoe next asserts that his sentence is unreasonable.
In post-Booker sentencing, district courts must calculate the
appropriate Guidelines range, consider the range in conjunction
with other relevant factors under the Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and impose a sentence.
Moreland, 437 F.3d at 432-33. A sentence imposed within a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Green,
436 F.3d at 457.
2
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 3 -
Vittitoe’s 160-month sentence is presumptively reasonable
because it is within both the properly calculated Guidelines range
and the applicable statutory maximum. Although the district court
did not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the record, it
was not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345; see United States v. Eura,
440 F.3d 625, 632 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, __
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 20, 2006) (No. 05-11659). The record
reflects that the district court complied with § 3553(a)(1), and
considered Vittitoe’s personal history and circumstances in
determining his sentence. Illustrative of the individualized
sentencing consideration Vittitoe received is the fact that the
district court made specific recommendations on the record
regarding the mental health services Vittitoe should receive while
incarcerated.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Vittitoe’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 -