UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL SHAWN TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00179)
Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Schles, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Shawn Tucker appeals the eighty-four month
sentence he received after pleading guilty to conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000). Tucker argues that this court improperly affords a
presumption of reasonableness to sentences that fall within the
properly calculated guidelines range, and that the sentence he
received exceeded the term necessary to effectuate the sentencing
objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2006). As we conclude that neither claim has merit, we affirm.
At sentencing, the parties agreed that the applicable
advisory guidelines range was seventy to eight-seven months’
imprisonment. The eighty-four month term of imprisonment imposed
by the district court falls within that range.* Moreover, the term
is substantially below the twenty-year maximum authorized by 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2000). Accordingly, Tucker’s sentence is
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006). Although Tucker challenges the validity and
constitutionality of this presumption of reasonableness, the
Supreme Court recently upheld our application of the presumption,
Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007), and Tucker
offers no compelling argument to rebut it. Accordingly, Tucker’s
*
Although Tucker’s brief states that he received an eighty-
seven month sentence, the judgment provides a term of eighty-four
months’ imprisonment.
- 2 -
challenge fails. We further reject Tucker’s conclusory contention
that his sentence exceeds that which would be necessary to fulfill
the sentencing objectives enumerated in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a).
We affirm Tucker’s sentence. 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 -