UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4176
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN NICHOLAS, a/k/a Scan,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00200)
Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tim C. Carrico, CARRICO LAW OFFICES, LC, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller
A. Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Nicholas pled guilty in 2002 to distribution of
cocaine base (crack) and was sentenced to a term of 188 months
imprisonment. Nicholas challenged the quantity of drugs on appeal,
and we affirmed the sentence. United States v. Nicholas, 71 F.
App’x 218 (4th Cir. 2003). Nicholas subsequently filed a motion to
vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), raising a number of claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court granted
relief on one claim, finding that Nicholas was incorrectly
sentenced as a career offender because one of his predicate
convictions was too old to be counted. The court resentenced
Nicholas to a term of 151 months imprisonment, the bottom of the
revised advisory guideline range. Nicholas appeals this sentence,
arguing that the sentence is unreasonable because the court gave
more weight to the advisory guideline range than to other factors
set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
This court has repeatedly held that a sentence imposed
within a properly calculated guideline range is presumed to be
reasonable 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). We have considered Nicholas’
claim of procedural error, see United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006), and find it without merit.
- 2 -
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by 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 -