UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

TODD ANDREW BRATTAIN, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, 

District Judge. (2:07-cr-00093-1) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael R. Cline, MICHAEL R. CLINE LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States 

Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Todd Andrew Brattain pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to three counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2113 (2000), and one count of carrying a short-barreled 

rifle during a crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a) 

(2000). Brattain was sentenced to seventy months in prison on 

each of the robbery counts, all terms to run concurrently, and 

120 months on the firearm count, to run consecutive to the 

robbery sentence. Brattain challenges only the reasonableness 

of his sentence, arguing that the district court should only 

have sentenced him to 120 months and not the combined 190-month 

sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district 

court for reasonableness, generally applying an abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 

2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) 

properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range; (2) treat 

the Guidelines as advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000); and (4) explain its reasons for 

selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-74. We presume 

that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range 

is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th 

Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 

2 
(2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of 

correctness of within-Guidelines sentence). 

 Because Brattain did not object to the district 

court’s sentence, however, his claim is reviewed for plain 

error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 

U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). “In reviewing for plain error, our 

initial inquiry is whether an error occurred.” United States 

v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 1998). We conclude 

that it did not. 

 Here, the district court properly calculated and 

considered Brattain’s advisory Guidelines range, appropriately 

treating the Guidelines as advisory, and weighed the relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors, sentencing Brattain to the bottom of his 

Guidelines range for the robbery counts. See United States 

v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, 

the district court was statutorily required to impose at least 

the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence on the firearm charge, 

and to run that sentence consecutive to the robbery sentence. 

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (2000); see 

also United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008) 

("A statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable.") 

(emphasis in original). Thus, we find that the district court 

did not err in sentencing Brattain. 

3 
4 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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