UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUCANO VILLA-MORALES, a/k/a Jose Cruz, a/k/a Samuel SabastianRodriguez, a/k/a Efego Peres-Montufar, a/k/a Omar Cruz Balbuena,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00386-WLO)

Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: July 9, 2008

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna

Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lucano Villa-Morales was convicted by a jury of possession

of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(5) (2000). Villa-Morales was sentenced to twenty-seven

months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Villa-Morales initially contends that the

district court erred in sentencing him based on facts that were

neither admitted nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

sentencing courts are still required to calculate the applicable

advisory guideline range based on appropriate findings of fact.

United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). We

have previously noted that sentencing factors should continue to be

evaluated based on the preponderance of the evidence. United States

v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Thus, we conclude the

district court properly determined Villa-Morales’s advisory

guideline range based on facts found by a preponderance of the

evidence.

Villa-Morales also contends that his sentence is

unreasonable. When determining a sentence, the district court must

calculate the appropriate advisory guideline range and consider it

in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

(2000). United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir.

2006). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a
- 3 -

sentence is for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S.

Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,

473 (4th Cir. 2007). Sentences within the applicable Guidelines

range may be presumed reasonable. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473.

The district court followed the necessary procedural steps

in sentencing Villa-Morales, appropriately treating the Sentencing

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the

applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)

factors. Furthermore, Villa-Morales’s 27-month sentence, which is

the lowest end of the Guidelines range and below the statutory

maximum, may be presumed reasonable. Thus, we conclude VillaMorales has failed to establish that the district court abused its

discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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