United States v. Dawson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4369

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD DAWSON, a/k/a Tree,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00061-FL)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Ronald Dawson was convicted on a guilty plea to

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). The district court sentenced

Dawson to 120 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised

release. Dawson appeals his conviction and sentence, asserting

that the district court erred in sentencing him based on an

improper factor, and that his conviction and sentence violated the

Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. We

affirm.

In imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), a court 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 proper advisory

[g]uidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of

- 2 -
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines

sentence).

The district court sentenced Dawson only after

considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the

§ 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker, and stated that the

sentence it imposed was based on Dawson’s extensive criminal

record, lack of significant legitimate employment history, and

history of probation revocation. Dawson’s 120-month sentence is

within the properly calculated advisory guideline range and does

not exceed the ten-year statutory maximum authorized by 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(a)(2) (2000). Dawson does not suggest any information so

compelling as to rebut the presumption that his sentence is

reasonable. We therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable.

Dawson’s final claim, that his federal conviction should

be vacated because he was prosecuted for the same conduct in state

court, allegedly in violation of his rights secured by the Double

Jeopardy Clause, is without merit. As Dawson himself acknowledges,

this claim is foreclosed by Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit

precedents applying the duel sovereign doctrine. See Bartkus v.

Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 128-29 (1959); United States v. Alvarado,

440 F.3d 191, 196-97 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 81

(2006).

Accordingly, we affirm Dawson’s conviction and sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 4 -