UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRYANT KEITH PEELE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (CR-04-59-FL)

Submitted: November 27, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006

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

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Keith Peele appeals his conviction and 39-month

sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). His only argument on appeal is that his

sentence was unreasonable.

In imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), courts still must calculate the applicable

guideline range after making the appropriate findings of fact and

consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under

the guidelines and § 3553(a). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d

424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). We will

affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily

prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the

proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006)

(citations omitted). “[A] defendant can only rebut the presumption

by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured

against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,

445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S.

July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439).
- 3 -

Peele argues that the hardship his incarceration will

cause his family warranted a sentence below the advisory guideline

range. “This Circuit has construed downward departures based on

family ties very narrowly.” United States v. Maddox, 48 F.3d 791,

799 (4th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed the record, the district

court’s decision, and the parties’ briefs on appeal, and conclude

that the circumstances facing Peele, while regrettable, do not rise

to the level of “extraordinary” and thus do not warrant a reduced

sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Bell, 974 F.2d 537, 538 (4th

Cir. 1992); United States v. Brand, 907 F.2d 31, 33 (4th Cir.

1990).

In addition, the district court properly weighed the

§ 3553(a) factors in determining Peele’s sentence. “The district

court need not discuss each factor set forth in § 3553(a) ‘in

checklist fashion;’ ‘it is enough to calculate the range accurately

and explain why (if the sentence lies outside it) this defendant

deserves more or less.’” Moreland, 437 F.3d at 432 (quoting United

States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005)). The district

court adequately explained the reasons for Peele’s sentence, and

Peele has not rebutted the presumption that the sentence was

reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm Peele’s conviction and sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 4 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED