noting that sentencing courts should determine the sentence range under the guidelines, consider other statutory factors, and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum
How later courts described this case
- noting that sentencing courts should determine the sentence range under the guidelines, consider other statutory factors, and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4687
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RASHAWN ALI BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00240)
Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rashawn Ali Brown appeals from his eighteen-month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal, he asserts that his
sentence was unreasonable because “it is greater than necessary to
comply with the purposes of sentencing.” We have carefully
reviewed the record and Brown’s contentions and find that the
sentence imposed by the district court at the bottom of the
guideline range was reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that sentencing courts
should determine the sentence range under the guidelines, consider
other statutory factors, and impose a reasonable sentence within
the statutory maximum). Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s sentence.
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
- 2 -