UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4973
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE DUGGER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00197)
Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: May 20, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maurice Dugger pled guilty to distribution of cocaine
base (crack) and was sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, we determined that the district court improperly enhanced
Dugger’s offense level by two levels based on his sale of illegal
drugs while in prison. We vacated the sentence and remanded for
resentencing. The district court conducted a resentencing hearing
and sentenced Dugger to 97 months’ imprisonment. He again appeals,
contending that the district court failed to consider the 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) factors in determining
his sentence. We disagree and therefore affirm Dugger’s sentence.
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007);
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007)
(discussing procedure district courts must follow in sentencing
defendant). Here, the district court properly calculated the
guideline range and correctly treated the Sentencing Guidelines as
advisory.
Dugger contends that the court did not consider the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). The district court
“need not robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection”
but should “provide [this Court] an assurance that the sentencing
court considered the § 3553(a) factors with regard to the
- 2 -
particular defendant . . . .” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d
652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). Here, the district court explained that
it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and stated that the 97-
month sentence “reflects the nature and circumstance of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the
needs for deterrence.” The court also stated that it found no
basis for a departure. We find that the district court adequately
considered the § 3553(a) factors.
Further, we find that the 97-month sentence, which is the
bottom of the advisory guideline range, and well below the twenty-
year statutory maximum sentence, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C)
(West 1999 & Supp. 2007), is reasonable. See United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying presumption of
correctness to within-guideline sentence); see also Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness of within-guideline sentence). Accordingly, we
affirm Dugger’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -