UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4145
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TODD ANDREW BRATTAIN,
Defendant - Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber,
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00093-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael R. Cline, MICHAEL R. CLINE LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States
Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Todd Andrew Brattain pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to three counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113 (2000), and one count of carrying a short-barreled
rifle during a crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a)
(2000). Brattain was sentenced to seventy months in prison on
each of the robbery counts, all terms to run concurrently, and
120 months on the firearm count, to run consecutive to the
robbery sentence. Brattain challenges only the reasonableness
of his sentence, arguing that the district court should only
have sentenced him to 120 months and not the combined 190-month
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district
court for reasonableness, generally applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1)
properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range; (2) treat
the Guidelines as advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000); and (4) explain its reasons for
selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-74. We presume
that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69
2
(2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of
correctness of within-Guidelines sentence).
Because Brattain did not object to the district
court’s sentence, however, his claim is reviewed for plain
error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). “In reviewing for plain error, our
initial inquiry is whether an error occurred.” United States
v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 1998). We conclude
that it did not.
Here, the district court properly calculated and
considered Brattain’s advisory Guidelines range, appropriately
treating the Guidelines as advisory, and weighed the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors, sentencing Brattain to the bottom of his
Guidelines range for the robbery counts. See United States
v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally,
the district court was statutorily required to impose at least
the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence on the firearm charge,
and to run that sentence consecutive to the robbery sentence.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (2000); see
also United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008)
("A statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable.")
(emphasis in original). Thus, we find that the district court
did not err in sentencing Brattain.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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