UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4539
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE ALTWAN LANGFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00013)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Altwan Langford appeals his 212-month sentence
following his guilty plea and conviction for possession with intent
to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D). Langford’s attorney filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court erred in imposing an
unreasonable sentence. The Government did not file a brief, and
although advised of his right to do so, Langford did not file a pro
se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Langford suggests that the district court erred by
sentencing him to a 212-month sentence. After United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court is no longer bound by
the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. However, in
imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts still must calculate the
applicable guideline range after making the appropriate findings of
fact, and consider the range in conjunction with other relevant
factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2007). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will
affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily
prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the
- 2 -
proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see
also Rita v. United States, ___U.S.___, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007)
(upholding presumption of reasonableness).
“The district court need not discuss each factor set
forth in § 3553(a) ‘in checklist fashion;’ ‘it is enough to
calculate the range accurately and explain why (if the sentence
lies outside it) this defendant deserves more or less.’” Moreland,
437 F.3d at 432 (quoting United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729
(7th Cir. 2005)).
Here, the district court appropriately treated the
guidelines as advisory. Langford did not object to the calculation
of the guidelines range, which placed him at a total offense level
of 31 and criminal history score of VI, for an advisory guidelines
range of 188 to 235 months in prison. The court sentenced Langford
after considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker. Thus, we conclude that
Langford’s 212-month sentence, which is within the appropriate
guidelines range and below the statutory maximum, is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Langford’s conviction and sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform Langford, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
- 3 -
Langford requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Langford.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -