UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5061
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH WAYNE STEPTER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00114-NCT)
Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Wayne Stepter, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2) (2000). Stepter
was sentenced by the district court to forty-one months’
imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Stepter 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 Stepter’s invitation to ignore established
circuit authority. United States v. Chong, 285 F.3d 343, 346-47
(4th Cir. 2002).
Stepter also contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Because the district court properly
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
calculated and considered the advisory guideline range and weighed
the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude Stepter’s sentence,
which was below the statutory maximum and within the advisory
guideline range, is reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -