United States v. Marrs

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-5081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARLIN ANDREW MARRS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 06-4051

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CR-03-289; 1:03-cr-00289)

Submitted: June 19, 2006 Decided: July 6, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Michael L. Desautels, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

These cases are before the court after our limited remand

for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). Marlin Andrew Marrs appeals the forty-one-month sentence

imposed after remand, on his guilty plea to distribution of cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Marrs

challenges the reasonableness of this sentence, contending that it

is longer than necessary to comply with the factors set forth in 18

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). We find, however,

that the district court sentenced Marrs only after appropriately

considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the

§ 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker. The court sentenced

Marrs within the applicable advisory guideline range and well below

the twenty-year statutory maximum set forth in 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(b)(1)(C) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).

We cannot conclude that, under these circumstances,

Marrs’s sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Green, 436

F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (finding that sentence imposed within

properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 74 U.S.L.W. 3654 (U.S. May

22, 2006) (No. 05-10474); see also United States v. Johnson, 445

F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that district court’s

“detailed inquiry into the various circumstances bearing upon

- 3 - [defendant’s] sentence” satisfied court’s obligation to consider

§ 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we affirm the 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

- 4 -