UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5278
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDDIE LEE CALDWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:06-cr-00030-jct)
Submitted: August 24, 2007 Decided: September 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry N. Grimes, Melvin E. Williams, TERRY N. GRIMES, ESQ., P.C.,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States
Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Freddie Lee Caldwell pled guilty to: Count 1,
transportation of child pornography by means of a computer in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(1) (West Supp. 2007); Count 2,
distribution of child pornography by means of a computer in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2007); Count
4, possession of three or more images of child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West Supp. 2007); Count
5, use of interactive computer service to receive obscene material
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462 (2000). He was sentenced to
eighty-four months of imprisonment.
On appeal, Caldwell raises the following issues, whether:
(1) the Government failed to provide discovery; (2) the district
court erred by denying Caldwell’s motion to withdraw his guilty
plea; (3) the district court erred at sentencing by relying on
evidence withheld by the Government; (4) his sentence was
reasonable; and (5) the Government committed prosecutorial
misconduct at sentencing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, we find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by delaying Caldwell’s sentencing hearing so that his
counsel could be sure he received the disputed discovery items.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a); United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 675
(4th Cir. 1996) (stating review standard). To the extent Caldwell
alleges Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1973) violations, we find
- 2 -
no reversible error. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633
(2002).
Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s decision to deny Caldwell’s motion to withdraw his plea.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h); United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421,
424 (4th Cir. 2000). Third, there is insufficient record evidence
to support Caldwell’s claim that the Government withheld evidence
used against him at sentencing.
Next, Caldwell alleges that his eight-four-month sentence
is unreasonable. Caldwell was sentenced within a
properly-calculated Sentencing Guidelines range and thus his
sentence presumptively is reasonable. United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 341-44 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States,
127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-67 (2007) (holding that an appellate court
may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court’s
sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing
Guidelines). “[A] defendant can only rebut the presumption [of
reasonableness] by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.
3044 (2006). Caldwell has failed to demonstrate his sentence was
unreasonable. Id.
- 3 -
Finally, we find Caldwell’s claims of prosecutorial
misconduct without foundation. Accordingly, we affirm Caldwell’s
convictions and 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
- 4 -