UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ARDELL CANADY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:02-cr-00127-F-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 20, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Peregoy, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM T. PEREGOY, Wilmington,

North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting United

States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Canady was initially sentenced to a total prison term of 360

months. On appeal, we vacated Canady’s sentence and remanded for

resentencing. See United States v. Canady, No. 04-4363 (4th Cir.

July 13, 2005) (unpublished).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Ardell Canady appeals his 315-month prison sentence

resulting from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), possessing with the

intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) (2000), distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and use of a firearm during a drug

conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000).* Finding no

error, we affirm.

Canady contends that the district court imposed his

sentence in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). After Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by the

range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. United States v.

Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v.

Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining the

sentence, however, courts are still required to calculate and

consider the guidelines range, as well as the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id. In sentencing

defendants after Booker, district courts should apply a

preponderance of the evidence standard, taking into account that

the resulting guideline range is advisory only. United States v.
- 3 -

Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a

post-Booker sentence if it is within the statutorily prescribed

range and is reasonable. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47.

Here, the district court correctly calculated Canady’s

range under the now-advisory sentencing guidelines using a

preponderance of the evidence standard. After giving due

consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, the district court then

sentenced him within the statutorily prescribed range for his

offenses and below the range provided for by the sentencing

guidelines. Canady has not rebutted the presumption that the

district court imposed a reasonable sentence.

We also reject Canady’s argument that the district court

failed to follow this court’s mandate when it conducted the

resentencing proceeding on remand. The district court fully

complied with this court’s direction that it “determine the

appropriate sentencing range under the guidelines, making all the

factual findings appropriate for that determination.”

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