UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4660
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN EDWARD JACKSON, a/k/a Aaron Green,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00184-1)
Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 27, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herbert L. Hively, II, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia; R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Edward Jackson pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute five
grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000). Jackson was sentenced by the district court to
262 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jackson contends the sentence
imposed by the district court was unreasonable because it included
an enhancement under the career offender guideline. We affirm.
When reviewing the district court's application of the
Sentencing Guidelines, this court reviews findings of fact for
clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
A sentence is unreasonable if based on an error in construing or
applying the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 456-57. Jackson argues
that the district court should have sentenced him within the
guideline range established by his offense conduct and criminal
history because it was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). However, because Jackson does not allege that the district
court relied on an improper fact or erred in its determination that
Jackson satisfied the criteria for enhancement as a career
offender, we conclude that his sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. Additionally, we deny Jackson’s pro se motion for
appointment of new counsel on appeal. We dispense with oral
- 2 -
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -