United States v. Artis

214 F. App'x 287
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Artis. Read the opinion of the Court — 132 F. App'x 483
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 17, 2007·No. 06-4261·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Artis pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp.2006). The district court sentenced Artis to seventy-six months’ imprisonment. We affirm.

On appeal, Artis argues that his sentence is unreasonable. However, Artis’s sentence was within the guideline range of sixty-three to seventy-eight months and below the ten-year statutory maximum sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(a)(2). Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006), we find the sentence reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable), cer t. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006). To the extent that Artis argues that this court should revisit its holding in Green, one panel of this court may not overrule a decision of another panel. See, e.g., Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n. 2 (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm Artis’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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Artis, 214 F. App'x 287 (4th Cir. 2007).

214 F. App'x 287 (United States v. Artis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Charles Aaron Green
436 F.3d 449 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)