# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 23, 2006 · 203 F. App'x 474

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020834

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Laronn BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 23, 2006
- **Citations:** 203 F. App'x 474
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020834

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4291

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER LARONN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00095-FWB)

Submitted: September 8, 2006 Decided: October 23, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Christopher Laronn Brown appeals the sentence imposed

after we affirmed his conviction, vacated the sentence and remanded

to the district court for resentencing. Brown contends the

district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on facts not

found by the jury or admitted by him. Finding no error, we affirm.

Brown’s sentence was vacated and remanded because the

district court used the guidelines in a mandatory fashion. The

sentence was not imposed in accordance with the rules announced in

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). At resentencing, the

district court properly calculated the guidelines range of

imprisonment, considered the statutory sentencing factors under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and imposed a sentence within the

guidelines range of imprisonment.

We review a sentence to determine whether it was within

the statutory range of imprisonment and reasonable. United

States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2006).

Post-Booker, the district court is still required to consider the

sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment and the pertinent

policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. The court is also

required to consider the factors under § 3553(a). Id. at 432. The

court determines the appropriate guidelines range of imprisonment

by making factual findings. Id. A sentence that falls within the

- 2 -
properly calculated range of imprisonment is entitled to a

presumption of reasonableness. Id. at 433.

We find the sentence reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm

the sentence. We deny Brown’s motion to dismiss counsel and

appoint new counsel. 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

- 3 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020834. Public record. Not legal advice.