UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ANTHONY VITTITOE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00264-NCT)

Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: February 5, 2007

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.

Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
1Under the career offender guideline, “[a] career offender’s

criminal history category in every case . . . shall be Category

VI.” USSG § 4B1.1(b). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Anthony Vittitoe appeals the 160-month sentence the

district court imposed after Vittitoe pled guilty to one count of

bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). We

affirm. 

Vittitoe’s conduct carried a base offense level of

twenty, which was increased two levels because the robbery involved

the property of a financial institution. U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(a) & (b)(1) (2005) (“USSG”). Due to the

nature of this offense and Vittitoe’s criminal history, Vittitoe

was designated a career offender. USSG § 4B1.1 (2005). Because

the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a) is twenty years, Vittitoe’s offense level

increased to thirty-two. USSG § 4B1.1(b) (2005). With a threelevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Vittitoe’s total

offense level was twenty-nine. This, coupled with a criminal

history category of VI,1 yielded an advisory Guidelines range of

151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. USSG Ch. 5, Pt. A (sentencing

table) (2005). Vittitoe did not object to the application of the

Guidelines as set forth in the presentence report. 
2

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

- 3 -

On appeal, Vittitoe first posits that the presumption of

reasonableness this court affords post-Booker2 sentences that are

within a properly calculated Guidelines range is unconstitutional.

A plethora of circuit precedent forecloses this argument. See,

e.g., United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.

2006), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 21,

2006) (No. 06-5439); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42

(4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); United States v.

Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309

(2006). Because one panel of this court cannot overrule another,

we decline Vittitoe’s invitation to ignore established circuit

authority. United States v. Chong, 285 F.3d 343, 346-47 (4th Cir.

2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Vittitoe next asserts that his sentence is unreasonable.

In post-Booker sentencing, district courts must calculate the

appropriate Guidelines range, consider the range in conjunction

with other relevant factors under the Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and impose a sentence.

Moreland, 437 F.3d at 432-33. A sentence imposed within a properly

calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Green,

436 F.3d at 457.
- 4 -

Vittitoe’s 160-month sentence is presumptively reasonable

because it is within both the properly calculated Guidelines range

and the applicable statutory maximum. Although the district court

did not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the record, it

was not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every

subsection.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345; see United States v. Eura,

440 F.3d 625, 632 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, __

U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 20, 2006) (No. 05-11659). The record

reflects that the district court complied with § 3553(a)(1), and

considered Vittitoe’s personal history and circumstances in

determining his sentence. Illustrative of the individualized

sentencing consideration Vittitoe received is the fact that the

district court made specific recommendations on the record

regarding the mental health services Vittitoe should receive while

incarcerated. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Vittitoe’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