UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTWAIN LAMONT PAULINGS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00219)
Submitted: April 27, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antwain Lamont Paulings appeals from his 115-month
sentence imposed after his guilty plea to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon. Paulings acknowledges that the Sentencing
Guidelines range of 95-115 months was properly calculated, but
asserts that his sentence was unreasonable because the district
court gave excessive weight to the Sentencing Guidelines range.
Paulings further argues that this court’s presumptively reasonable
standard for sentences imposed within a properly calculated
Guidelines range conflicts with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th
Cir. 2006) (“sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range
is presumptively reasonable.”). We have carefully reviewed the
record and Paulings’ contentions and find that the sentence imposed
by the district court was reasonable. See United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that sentencing courts
should determine the sentence range under the Guidelines, consider
other statutory factors, and impose a reasonable sentence within
the statutory maximum). Further, it is unnecessary to rely on
presumptive reasonableness because the district court sufficiently
articulated its reasons for imposing the sentence. See id.
Accordingly, we affirm Paulings’ sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -