UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALLAH BURMAN, a/k/a A,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(1:01-cr-00115-BEL-5)
Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew H. Baida, ROSENBERG/MARTIN/GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Allah Burman appeals his sentence imposed following this
court’s remand for resentencing. See United States v. Burman, No.
03-4555, 2005 WL 2646897 (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (unpublished).
Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Burman initially contends that the presumption
of reasonableness this court affords post-Booker* sentences imposed
within a properly calculated Guidelines range is unconstitutional.
This court’s precedent, however, 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 Burman’s invitation to ignore established circuit
authority. See United States v. Chong, 285 F.3d 343, 346-47 (4th
Cir. 2002).
Burman also contends that the district court erred by
sentencing him on facts that were not proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. However, after Booker, sentencing courts are still required
to calculate and consider the Guidelines range prescribed thereby
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). This
court has previously noted that sentencing factors should continue
to be evaluated based on the preponderance of the evidence. United
States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Thus, we
conclude the district court’s use of a preponderance of the
evidence standard was proper in Burman’s post-Booker resentencing.
Accordingly, we deny Burman’s motion for hearing and
affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
- 3 -