UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4821
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ANTHONY SAVAGE, a/k/a John Racanelli,
a/k/a Mark Racanelli, a/k/a Grandoni Egistot,
a/k/a Robert Toliano, a/k/a M. John Delano,
a/k/a Greg Masonotti, a/k/a Max Marrache,
a/k/a Egisto Grandoni, a/k/a John Anthony
Savage, a/k/a Mario J. Racanelli,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:01-cr-00362-WLO-1)
Submitted: January 28, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Clifton
T. Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Anthony Savage was originally sentenced in 2002 to
250 months imprisonment after a jury convicted him of multiple
counts of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering
offenses. This court affirmed Savage’s conviction, but vacated his
sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
On remand, the district court conducted a resentencing
hearing and determined that Savage’s total offense level remained
at 34; with a criminal history category of IV, the resulting
guideline range remained at 210-262 months imprisonment. After
considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2007), the district court again sentenced Savage to a
total term of 250 months imprisonment. Savage appeals.
Savage claims, first, that his sentence violated the Ex
Post Facto Clause because the district court applied Booker at
sentencing even though that decision issued after the date of the
offense. We have determined that retroactively applying the
remedial portion of Booker does not violate either the Due Process
or Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d
366, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that retroactive application
of remedial holding of Booker did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause
because the defendant was on notice of statutory penalty when he
committed the crime); United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d 250, 254
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3042 (2007). Because
Savage was on notice of the maximum statutory penalties when he
committed his crimes, this claim is without merit. Williams, 444
F.3d at 254.
Next, Savage challenges the reasonableness of his
sentence, arguing that a 250-month sentence is greater than
necessary to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). We review
Savage’s sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
See Gall v. United States, __ U.S. __, 2007 WL 4292116, at *10
(U.S. Dec. 10, 2007) (No. 06-7949). Moreover, a sentence that
falls within the properly calculated advisory guidelines range is
entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).
Because Savage was sentenced within the properly calculated
guidelines range, his sentence is presumptively reasonable. Here,
Savage urged the district court to impose a below-guidelines
sentence based on his loss of contact with his children and his
medical condition. Addressing both of these concerns, the district
court concluded that a 250-month sentence was nevertheless
reasonable. We conclude that Savage cannot show that the district
court’s sentence was unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm his
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 3 -
legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -