UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4768
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONDALE BERNARD SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00225-ALL)
Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: April 23, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United
States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rondale Bernard Smith appeals his 57-month prison
sentence, imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to distribution of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).
Smith’s only contention on appeal is that his sentence is
unreasonable.
When imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts must calculate the appropriate
Guidelines range, consider the range in conjunction with other
relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2006), and impose a reasonable sentence. United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). A sentence imposed within a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006). Thus, Smith’s 57-month sentence is presumptively
reasonable, because it is within both the properly calculated
Guidelines range and the applicable statutory maximum. The record
reflects that the district court complied with § 3553(a), and
considered Smith’s personal history and circumstances in
determining his sentence. Having reviewed the record and the
briefs of the parties on appeal, we find the sentence reasonable.
Therefore, we affirm Smith’s sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -