Case ID: f-appx_248/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Shawn TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-4191.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 30, 2007.
    Decided: Sept. 6, 2007.
    David Schles, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.'
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Shawn Tucker appeals the eighty-four month sentence he received after pleading guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Tucker argues that this court improperly affords a presumption of reasonableness to sentences that fall within the properly calculated guidelines range, and that the sentence he received exceeded the term necessary to effectuate the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006). As we conclude that neither claim has merit, we affirm.

At sentencing, the parties agreed that the applicable advisory guidelines range was seventy to eight-seven months’ imprisonment. The eighty-four month term of imprisonment imposed by the district court falls within that range. Moreover, the term is substantially below the twenty-year maximum authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2000). Accordingly, Tucker’s sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.2006). Although Tucker challenges the validity and constitutionality of this presumption of reasonableness, the Supreme Court recently upheld our application of the presumption, Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 208 (2007), and Tucker offers no compelling argument to rebut it. Accordingly, Tucker’s challenge fails. We further reject Tucker’s conclusory contention that his sentence exceeds that which would be necessary to fulfill the sentencing objectives enumerated in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a).

We affirm Tucker’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. 
      
       Although Tucker’s brief states that he received an eighty-seven month sentence, the judgment provides a term of eighty-four months' imprisonment.